Editing Pseudoscience (section)

===Lack of openness to testing by other experts===
* Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (termed "[[science by press conference]]"):<ref name="Lilienfeld"/><ref name="58lDT">{{cite journal|vauthors=Gitanjali B|title=Peer review – process, perspectives and the path ahead|journal=Journal of Postgraduate Medicine|volume=47|issue=3|pages=210–14|year=2001|pmid=11832629|url=http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/peerReview.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060623193431/http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/PeerReview.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=23 June 2006}}</ref>{{refn|group=Note|For an opposing perspective, e.g. [http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ss5.html Chapter 5 of Suppression Stories by Brian Martin] (Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent, 1997), pp. 69–83.}} Some proponents of ideas that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to [[peer review]], sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.{{sfnp|Ruscio|2002}}
* Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to [[Data sharing (Science)|share data]] so others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.{{sfnp|Gauch|2003|pp=124 ff}}
* Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an [[independent review]] of data or methodology is requested.{{sfnp|Gauch|2003|pp=124 ff}}
* Substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all viewpoints is not encouraged.{{sfnp|Sagan|1994|p=210}}