No, this looks just right to me (I know first-hand what kind of "quality" is typical for bio-medical research). And these are science-supporting publications. I also like the recursion in the last paragraph of the Economist story:
"It should be noted that Dr Ioannidis's study suffers from its own particular bias. Important as medical science is, it is not the be-all and end-all of research. The physical sciences, with more certain theoretical foundations and well-defined methods and endpoints, probably do better than medicine. Still, he makes a good point—and one that lay readers of scientific results, including those reported in this newspaper, would do well to bear in mind. Which leaves just one question: is there a less than even chance that Dr Iaonnidis's paper itself is wrong?"
> much more to the point
It's very interesing, and correctly describes the pathologies of the scientific community, but it's probably wrong on substance, judging by the discussion here:
Re: Eurika! :-)
"It should be noted that Dr Ioannidis's study suffers from its own particular bias. Important as medical science is, it is not the be-all and end-all of research. The physical sciences, with more certain theoretical foundations and well-defined methods and endpoints, probably do better than medicine. Still, he makes a good point—and one that lay readers of scientific results, including those reported in this newspaper, would do well to bear in mind. Which leaves just one question: is there a less than even chance that Dr Iaonnidis's paper itself is wrong?"
> much more to the point
It's very interesing, and correctly describes the pathologies of the scientific community, but it's probably wrong on substance, judging by the discussion here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/1494111.html