[newswasboring]

> Furthermore, they’re explicitly saying that “red flagging” by their simple indicator doesn’t mean that the paper is fake, but that it merits higher scrutiny.

Then they and science should change their sensationalist headline. It's ironic that a paper about fakeness of something uses a borderline misleading title.

[danhau]

You’re not wrong, but it is everyone’s own responsibility to read the article and not just the headline.

[newswasboring]

So it's ok to lie in a portion of your work? Where do you draw the line? I draw it when someone starts communicating. Being wrong is ok, being deceitful isn't.

[caddemon]

Is this headline really deceitful though? Certainly the research is flawed, but the statement "[bad thing] is alarmingly common" is basically just a subjective statement that lets you know what position the author is going to argue.

[newswasboring]

I will never understand why everyone bends over backwards to justify lazy af journalism. This a magazine which is supposed to do scientific journalism, yet it didn't even mention the points that readers in HN comments were able to figure out on a cursory look. Peer review isn't just the 3 reviewers who accept or reject something in a journal. It's everyone in the scientific community.

[ouid]

Responsibility is not conserved in a robust system. This is true and it is also the journal's responsibility to not mislead.

[Retric]

Expecting people to read every single article posted to HN is unrealistic.

Simply reading a title and on a topic you don’t find interesting then gives people the wrong impression.