That’s the impression I get too, and it seems to boil down to two things: 1. Does the paper hold up to scrutiny by people who understand the subject matter? (I

That’s the impression I get too, and it seems to boil down to two things: 1. Does the paper hold up to scrutiny by people who understand the subject matter? (Including: Are the facts represented truthfully, is it free from bias, do the calculations and charts actually represent the data, is the experiment viable) 2. Can the results be reproduced by a totally unrelated (and unbiased) team? And it feels like we’re at an excellent time in history where we can handle #1 through collaborative technologies (even a wiki), and 2 can be done better by encouraging those other scientific teams to publishing results along side the first. Am I off-base?