alt Hacker NewsAnd thus all citing, have fatally flawed there paper if its central to the thesis, thus, he who proofs the root is rotten, should gain there funding from this point forward.
And thus all citing, have fatally flawed there paper if its central to the thesis, thus, he who proofs the root is rotten, should gain there funding from this point forward.
I see this approach as a win win for science. Debunking bad science becomes a for profit enterprise, rigorous science becomes the only one sustainable, the paper churn gets reduced, as even producing a good one becomes a financial risk, when it becomes foundational and gets debunked later.