You might have more success if you started a journal to publish REVIEWS of scientific papers published elsewhere, pointing out their flaws, (or their value) and giving a summary grade-- eg, A+, C-, D, F... Emphasis should be on readability: translating the academic verbage into something that can be understood by people not in the same sub-sub-sub specialization, filling in background facts and ideas that were assumed in the original papers, defining terms, as necessary, pointing out why the study is important (or so flawed as to be useless). Some papers would just basically be a fisking of an egregiously poor (or fradulent) paper or group of papers, and pointing out what additional experiments would need to be done to prove something (anything) of value. Others would highlight dirty statistical tricks being played in papers x, y, and z. And others would be to praise and highlight the rare article that actually expands our knowledge in some important way.
By setting up a venue to debunk/explicate/praise already published papers, and publicizing it, you should get a flood of papers by eager volunteers; and probably some whistle blowers as well.
You would probably have to allow articles to be published anonymously, since criticizing a well established figure in a certain field might be career suicide for younger researchers.
This is really beautifully written, Étienne. Whatever snags you next will be a lucky project!
You might have more success if you started a journal to publish REVIEWS of scientific papers published elsewhere, pointing out their flaws, (or their value) and giving a summary grade-- eg, A+, C-, D, F... Emphasis should be on readability: translating the academic verbage into something that can be understood by people not in the same sub-sub-sub specialization, filling in background facts and ideas that were assumed in the original papers, defining terms, as necessary, pointing out why the study is important (or so flawed as to be useless). Some papers would just basically be a fisking of an egregiously poor (or fradulent) paper or group of papers, and pointing out what additional experiments would need to be done to prove something (anything) of value. Others would highlight dirty statistical tricks being played in papers x, y, and z. And others would be to praise and highlight the rare article that actually expands our knowledge in some important way.
By setting up a venue to debunk/explicate/praise already published papers, and publicizing it, you should get a flood of papers by eager volunteers; and probably some whistle blowers as well.
You would probably have to allow articles to be published anonymously, since criticizing a well established figure in a certain field might be career suicide for younger researchers.