You are reading a single comment by @Greenbank and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
More specifically the dubious nature was picked up by analysis of the images in the papers. Many scientific papers use doctored images of results to justify their findings.
See the following article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01363-z
Greenbank
The validation comes from the repeatability of the method used. Doing the same test should have the same result. What the result means is separate and in this case it looks to be the results were manipulated and not picked up by the peer review.