I think many readers (science journalists, in particular) only read the abstract, introduction, and then immediately jump to the conclusions. The introduction

I think many readers (science journalists, in particular) only read the abstract, introduction, and then immediately jump to the conclusions. The introduction section almost always frames the paper with opinions and biases. And, the conclusion section often focuses too heavily on how great the results are (and the author’s prowess) without identifying interesting issues or irregularities encountered in the methodology, data, or outcomes. I get that publishing is a huge part of a scientist’s career success and for self-promotion, but I see many papers that over emphasize those aspects. Again, I don’t fault them. One can’t easily get funding without a reputation. But, in my idealized (and probably unrealistic) world it would be different. I do want to stress that I’m not complaining. What I have access to is amazing. But, sometimes I wish I could see it all.