Not perfect (esp for the truly OOD kind of roast) but these are good starters! might be useful to see a database of reviewer comments (though reviewer comments are often biased and not perfect). Also some scientists like to get “high” off of being excessively “bad faith mean”, sometimes really unnecessarily.
it’s nice to always look at the skeptics - HOWEVER - skeptics sometimes persistently end up wrong too (gary marcus has that reputation, and it’s funny b/c his critiques don’t have terrible Brier score, it’s more that he misses the forest in some of the trees even though it’s true that other researchers miss another mycorrhizal network that HE is seeing)
there are some areas of research where reproducibility/data quality is especially poor (pharmacognosy/nutrition, early microplastics, educational psychology, social psychology, Alzheimer’s, [arguably] fMRI-based cogpsych). You might say the same for large areas of drug discovery, but they are more “sus” due to selection/filtering effects [studies done on drugs are generally way higher quality than ones on nutrition]
(a LOT of fields that have their OWN conferences dedicated to them - eg ISEV, EVs, pharmacognosy, microplastics have poor SN ratios and many poorly-controlled papers - yet most longevity researchers would still benefit way more from at least some more exposure to them!)
i know in the early days of longevity people had a lot of really strange “explain all” theories of aging that weren’t multi-modal enough, or they believed exercise slowed aging [it doesn’t, kaeberlein is known at going after them], or they didn’t sufficiently appreciate the power of CR. I know there is the Liao et al study on dif mouse strains and some naive people cite that as “against CR”, but this is more bc different mouse strains cannot be put on isocaloric diet).
also in early days there are also major inconsistencies in how people take care of animals or c elegans or w/e.
Cremieux on twitter has an interesting f-score/brier score - he’s really good at critiquing the “normies” (eg normies hating on SSRIs), but . He’s also alleged to be adjacent to HBD-people and mb insufficiently attentive to methodological issues in some of the more “ambitious” papers like those by kierkegaard, though people on twitter tend to forget this (and mb intelligence explains more than most people think it does).