Nowhere did this article say that 50% of research papers were not "factually accurate". It says faulty research methods mean 50% of conclusions are not true.

Which is itself a ridiculous thing for New Scientist to repeat. The basis of the scientific method is that we don't ever try to prove things are true. We just show that there's a good chance (1 in 20 is standard) that a model fits. Statistical methods are used and statistics is another area that has no truck with "truth" -- it is the mathematics of making your way in a probabilistic universe.

Having papers come out with promising claims and having "only" 50% of them stand up to professional scrutiny is a wondrous miracle. The entire scientific establishment is set up to disprove hypotheses as they emerge. If half of them stand, the scientific establishment is not doing its job.

A sensationalist article that plays into the "nobody really knows how things work, so I'll believe what I want" meme.

Of course, we're being told this by a research paper.

An anonymous study at the institute where I am revealed that 10% (IIRC) of scientists confessed to perpetrating a "serious misdemeanor".

My feeling is that the situation is not much different now from, say, in the 18th century. Some day, we'll be able to do formal reasoning on the data and findings of researchers, and we'll spot [some] mistakes and contradictions automatically. Until then, peer-review is the best we can do, and its emphasis is much more on form than content.

You have a higher chance of becoming rich with YCombinator than writing a factually accurate research paper.

Paul Graham: "So about 50% of the founders from that first summer, less than two years ago, are now rich, at least by their standards. "

New Scientist Magazine: Most scientific research papers are wrong ( http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915&feedId=online-news_rss20 )