Access to pubs is just a symptom of a huge issue, calling science science; science as it is at best a &quot;soft&quot; science and at worst, in many cases, whack quackery that preys on the weak.<p>As an example of what I mean, as of 2010, 91% of published pubs for the field of psychology supported their original hypothesis; if this isn&#x27;t an obvious red flag, not sure what would be.<p>Intellectual fraud needs to be criminalized and  claims based on science must require not only reproducibility, but solid means of denying the authors of any form of plausible deniability from escaping responsibility for what in many cases is fraud, or worse, blindly seeding their own bias as reality.<p>_______<p>[1] Quackery 
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Quackery" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Quackery</a><p>[2] Positive Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.plos.org&#x2F;plosone&#x2F;article?id=10.1371&#x2F;journal.pone.0010068" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.plos.org&#x2F;plosone&#x2F;article?id=10.1371&#x2F;journal....</a><p>[3] Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. 
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.plos.org&#x2F;plosmedicine&#x2F;article?id=10.1371&#x2F;journal.pmed.0020124" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.plos.org&#x2F;plosmedicine&#x2F;article?id=10.1371&#x2F;jou...</a>