Seems to me this issue is getting to the point where it could become an existential threat to the credibility of science in general. Note how climate-change deniers have recently used these sorts of arguments to challenge the consensus - is it really so far-fetched to argue that perhaps climate scientists are as biased as researchers in areas such as medicine and linguistics?
The pay-wall, blind peer review process seems broken beyond repair. There needs to be a better, robust method to publish every relevant study that is not utter crank, and get some sort of crowd-sourced consensus from researchers with credible reputations.
The pay-wall, blind peer review process seems broken beyond repair. There needs to be a better, robust method to publish every relevant study that is not utter crank, and get some sort of crowd-sourced consensus from researchers with credible reputations.