I am fortunate that I know how to distinguish good science from bad science. Oftentime, we are fooled by the numbers and statistics. Good science should have 1. a hypothesis, 2. design key experiments to address the unanswered questions, 3. use appropriate statistical analysis to determine if the findings are significantly different/similar from the null hypothesis, and 4. is reproducible.

To ensure that the research work is scientifically sound, one should also check the impact factor (# of articles cited per year)of the journal even if it is peer-reviewed. In general, the journal within a particular field is considered secondary if the impact factor is below 5, and is considered prestigious if the impact factor is above 10.

p.s. first time visitor for Psychology Lounge.

Thanks for the interesting comment. I suspect one of the main problems with most research is that it is naturally biased by profit or success motives. As much medical research is funded by drug companies or device manufacturers, there is a natural bias towards amplifying weak results, and then hyping them in the media. Government studies have less profit motive, but often have success bias, as no one wants to be the principal investigator on a 20 million dollar, ten year study that failed to get results. I don’t have a good solution other than to always read between the lines, look at the actual numbers and effect sizes, apply large doses of common sense and skepticism and keep taking those little yellow pills! (Although given the latest results on placebos, I like those more, since they have no side effects, and sugar pills are really really cheap!) The bottom line is that everything we know for sure is probably wrong, and the road to knowledge is paved with much confusion.