It's the ones in the middle that are getting kicked out of proportion. We've got the crappy psych papers that need to be torn into their tiny, illogical components; then we've got the Columbia and Stanford people, whose research shines with the light of a thousand suns.
Then we've got the tiny studies that are trying to be like, "look... maybe yes?" which is what all tiny studies do, and we are kind of like, "IRRELEVANT. SMALL STUDY. THEY USED THE WRONG X."
It's not like that isn't true, but other research is just plain not subjected to this level of scrutiny. Though it sure should be! Still, that probably chases some people off. They worry that their research will be attacked.
But, like, the more I say this, the more I think we don't need the kind of researcher who would be put off by this. So long as we don't attack their character.
-J