I suppose I haven&#x27;t read enough about publication bias to get as annoyed by it as you seem. TFA offers a pretty convincing argument that publication bias is bad enough to doom most current scientific efforts to irrelevance. That sounds like something we should talk about? Or we can talk about more important reasons why published research is unreliable, if you care to mention them.<p>What is &quot;the skeptic community&quot;? Is <i>Reason</i> part of it? I&#x27;m a bit skeptical that&#x27;s even a thing...<p>Statistical power is mentioned once in TFA and then forgotten. Amusingly enough, it gets the relevance of statistical power for the subject under discussion backwards. That graf might actually have been added by an &quot;obsessed&quot; editor.