Science involves various disciplines and sub-disciplines with utmost importance of expertise and honesty. However, several research results trigger a difference of opinions. These can be on methods, results and interpretations. A research paper undergoes review through learned editors and subject reviewers (predatory journals excluded). Several papers get rejected in this process itself and many papers get published laying the foundation for scientific literature. Now some papers do invite criticisms and comments from other specialists/workers in their field which lead to healthy scientific discussions. However, the punch is what should be the level/borderline of criticism? There is no doubt some workers try to enforce their opinions by all sorts of ways even if it involves nonsense bullying or declaring themselves as whistleblowers (only self-proclaimed). Thousands of papers involving all spheres of science have got retracted till date which is kind of justified depending on the breach of scientific ethics and several papers have even received worthless comments based only on personal views of certain people.

My question is who ultimately decides what is good or bad science? Does any individual has the right to declare himself as moral police and engage in defaming activities against any other worker?

Similar questions and discussions