If there was a collaborative project to review dubious published research papers, which of you would be interested in contributing? I think there are four categories of papers to focus on:
1. Papers with obviously false claims.
2. Papers that omit information that is crucial for verifying their claims.
3. Dubious papers that introduced ideas that attracted a lot of attention and subsequent sketchy papers.
4. Dubious papers published by people who just started in PhD programs.
Post-publish review is something that should probably be improved. It can't exactly be open to the public to contribute but equally the public should be able to see if scientists have (anonymous) serious doubts about a paper.
1. Papers with obviously false claims.
2. Papers that omit information that is crucial for verifying their claims.
3. Dubious papers that introduced ideas that attracted a lot of attention and subsequent sketchy papers.
4. Dubious papers published by people who just started in PhD programs.