It's interesting that Lowe said this: >When I review a paper, I freely admit that I am generally not thinking “What if all of this is based on lies and fakery?”

It's interesting that Lowe said this: >When I review a paper, I freely admit that I am generally not thinking “What if all of this is based on lies and fakery?” It’s not the way that we tend to approach scientific manuscripts. Rather, you ask whether the hypothesis is a sound one and if it was tested in a useful way: were the procedures used sufficient to trust the results and were these results good enough to draw conclusions that can in turn be built upon by further research? I have, over time, come to treat every paper I read as being based on lies and fakery (or incompetence, unconscious bias, or intentional omission of key details), and I work to convince myself that the paper is not fradulent or false. That is, my null hypothesis is that published work is wrong. After chattiing with many people about this, I've found that most people default ot believing a paper is right and if the figures and conclusion agree with their bias, they just move on, beliving the paper to be true. I've been guilty of this in the past as well.