Part of the reason why I have not much respect of social sciences. Scientific rigor there seems rather flawed. Even the fact that the topics and tabus change li

Part of the reason why I have not much respect of social sciences. Scientific rigor there seems rather flawed. Even the fact that the topics and tabus change like a slow fashion cycle shows that annealing the truth isn't really the highest commandment there. A publishing system that treats repeating and potentially nullifying old studies the same as new findings, would go a long way though. There's also no reason why it has to be so linear. Why can't a reviewer accept, but ask the question 'what abou Europe?' publicly, to which thr same or other researchers could attach their studies and get on a fast track to acceptance as well? You know, like an Academic wikipedia in shape of a journal.