|
Absolutely. False information can be extremely damaging in any context.
But I think it's actually unhelpful for the writers of the dog rape paper to act like the journal should have been suspicious purely based on the subject matter. Actual evidence often is counterintuitive. The paper cited documentation of over 1800 observed fucking/fighting incidents--data the journal didn't ask for, and they should have--but you are deluding yourself if you think a huge percentage of "hard science" studies aren't based on far less data relating to far more unexpected correlations.
The journal should be asking for proof of every study's data. The importance of this statement is weakened by the authors acting like the mere subject of dog rape is too hilarious for anyone to study.
|