“People just don’t do it,” Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong told Brietbart.com after making the shocking claim that less that one percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method. “I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field…were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method.” In particular, Armstrong talked about the proactive “alarmism” some scientists encourage regarding man-made climate change. He argued that scientists are more politically motivated or perhaps too focused on their own career advancement to want to publish accurate data.

Armstrong built on criteria he initially set in his 1982 paper called, “Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors.” According to him, there are eight criteria that qualify a good scientific paper:

  1. Objective
  2. Useful findings
  3. Full disclosure of methods
  4. Comprehensive review of prior knowledge
  5. Valid and reliable data
  6. Valid and simple methods
  7. Experimental evidence provided
  8. Conclusions that are consistent with evidence
99% of modern scientific papers are nothing more than politically-motivated pseudoscience, warns science pioneer — by Rhonda Johansson

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-08-...e-pioneer.html