"shakiness" is not the problem at all because papers are expected to serve as a perpetual source of observations intended to serve as food for thought. Therefor

"shakiness" is not the problem at all because papers are expected to serve as a perpetual source of observations intended to serve as food for thought. Therefore, as knowledge at the bleeding edge is always incomplete and being constructed as we speak, it's very nature is shaky. The problem being discussed is far greater and with far reaching repercussions. The problem is somewhere between bad science pushing bogus ideas and outright scientific fraud. The Royal Society's motto is quite literally "take no one's word for it". That's the Hallmark of science. Yet, today's academia is completely ignoring their most basic tenets and just accepting whatever bullshit idea is peddled by anyone without the faintest requirement of effort to verify it's validity?