People have uses for conclusions that sometimes don't have anything to do with their validity.
So while "if it's any good, people will use it" is true and quality contributions will be useful, the converse is not true: the use or reach of published work may be only tenuously connected to whether it's good.
Reputation signals like credentials and authority have their limits/noise, but bring some extra signal to the situation.
what's missing from this paper is a probability using its own model that it too is false. counter to the headline, it implies that by its own probable falsehood, most published research is in fact true.
I admit to missing the joke in the first reading.
pseudonyms may prevent the abuse of invalid papers by removing the ability of the authors to front institutional reputations for partisan claims.
the movement for science and data to drive policy outside of their domains sounds nice until you find that the science and data are irrepreducible, and the institutions have become laundering vehicles for debased opinions that wash the hands of policymakers. as though the potential for abuse has become the value.
maybe it's a rarefied kind of funny, but the kernel of truth it reveals is that it could be time to start using pseudonyms in some disciplines to make the axis of policymakers and academics more honest.
So while "if it's any good, people will use it" is true and quality contributions will be useful, the converse is not true: the use or reach of published work may be only tenuously connected to whether it's good.
Reputation signals like credentials and authority have their limits/noise, but bring some extra signal to the situation.