The federal reserve study seems a little suspect. Not saying it is, but it's curious that it just happened to be 51% of the papers that were deficient. And, th

The federal reserve study seems a little suspect. Not saying it is, but it's curious that it just happened to be 51% of the papers that were deficient. And, their methodology kind of glossed over their sampling strategy. I wish the science community had better methods for documenting the entire scientific process and timeline. We live in an era where everyone has access to computers, but research results are still offered as paper documents. This provides a lot of opportunity to 'fudge the numbers' - to re-write the hypothesis and/or methodology to fit the intended outcome. Wouldn't it be much better if research results were stored in standardized file format that showed an unalterable timeline of all activity?