Feels like too many people think “published paper = truth”, when really the paper is just the start of a journey towards truth, on which hurdles such as replica

Feels like too many people think “published paper = truth”, when really the paper is just the start of a journey towards truth, on which hurdles such as replication, independent scrutiny, and common-sense/real-world testing must be overcome before we can start treating them as reliable. And I think most scientists do actually get this, and what we suffer from is a media environment that jumps on the first sniff of a result and holds it up as definitive proof of something.