Or the lack thereof:
Despite this outrageous setup and all the attention to it over the past 20 years, the status quo is still firmly entrenched, especially when it comes to health research. All of us — physicians, policymakers, journalists, curious patients — can’t access many of the latest research findings, unless we fork over a hefty sum or it happens to be published in an open-access journal.
Because of these now well-known problems, it’s not unusual to hear statements like those from The Lancet editor Richard Horton that “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” He continued: “Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
—“Science is often flawed. It’s time we embraced that,” GE-funded Vox.com, today.
You know what other “literature” may simply be untrue? The material published by the JuiceVoxers themselves. Just ask ’em:
(H/T: Small Dead Animals; as one of the commenters notes, “What an odd story to be published in Vox since their history is steeped in ‘the science is settled.'”)