It's an amazing topic. My wife is a doctor and I'm amazed of how difficult is to see if an article is sound or important or it's been checked properly, or if th

It's an amazing topic. My wife is a doctor and I'm amazed of how difficult is to see if an article is sound or important or it's been checked properly, or if the tree of citations that lead to it's importance is sound after new studies. I've been thinking on a visual standard that let's you know what status has a given study, how many reviews has, if it's citing studies that are solid with solid peer reviews and such. Ideally it should be possible to track a new discovery down to it's scientific roots, and easily be able to know how good is. But to achieve this you need as you said to change all the scientific publication method, create some kind of standard publication API for the data, the citations, the peer reviews and number of times it's been replicated. Also some kind of debate forum around this publications would be of help. Were people could coordinate replications or talk about methods , etc... But it is all a big mess, and certainly ready for disruption. One clear user case is that recently it was published in the New England (a tier one med publication) how all the studies about high blood pressure and salt relationship have their origin in an old animal study with rabbits (If I recall correctly). They fed them with the equivalent for humans of hundreds of grams of salt, as the blood pressure rise it was deduced that salt causes high blood pressure. They also did a meta-study about the relationship of high blood pressure and salt and they didn't find a clear correlation. Maybe this is correct maybe it´s not, but that a medical truth as established as salt=high blood pressure can not be properly traced and known, just let's you see how it's all broken. edit: typos and spelling