Diagnosing "Bad Science"

Science is often referred to as one entity (especially in political discussions), but there is no specific line between what is "Science" and what isn't. There is a bunch of "stuff" that gets done by people (many of whom call themselves scientists) and some of this "stuff" is done more scientifically than others. The scientific method we teach in primary school (make a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, etc) doesn't always map well to the research industry. Much of the time - especially in interdisciplinary research - it is difficult to know all of the possible effects and think of all of the variables.

Hence, there is a system for people (who identify as scientists) to discuss research. One arm of this system are conferences - face to face meeting filled with talks and posters. Another is journals, especially the "peer reviewed" ones. A person submits a paper (ideally filled with original research) to a Journal, and if the editors like it enough, they send it to other people (who are subjectively judged to be experts on such things) and they figure out what is wrong with the paper. This process has flaws:

• Perhaps the people reviewing the paper favor a competing theory/method, even if one hasn't been shown to be better than the other
  
• Perhaps the reviewers aren't expert enough to catch mistakes; or they don't have broad enough knowledge
  
• The reviewers can always ask for more work to be done ("Science" is never "Done") but it is usually in the authors' interest to get a paper out ASAP
  
• The reviewers might be jerks or otherwise un-Scientifically motivated
  

This process has many benefits. As a reader (or Consumer of "Science") you can "trust" what you read in a peer reviewer journal slightly more than something you randomly find on the internet. Multiple experts have already attested that it seems right. There is "research" out there that is not good "Science". Sometimes it is politically motivated and is nowhere near objective. Sometimes it is done by a person who is working outside of their specialty, so it ignores pre-existing knowledge in the field. A final category is "research" done by... well, the "crazy people". For lack of a better (nicer?) term, the Crazy People are well-meaning individuals who are typically not associated with a formal research institution and have little or no training in the field they do "research" in. They typically have a theory that will revolutionize the field... if only someone would listen to them. There are some conferences that do not have rigid requirements for presenting (such as the American Physical Society) so there are some sessions filled with retirees convinced they have proven Einstein wrong. Luckily, this "Bad Science" is easy to spot:

• The author's affiliation is to "PhysicsBrain, Inc", "The Future Knowledge Research Institute", or something else that sounds made up and you've never heard of. They are likely the President, Founder, CEO, or Head Researcher there. And the only Employee.
  
• They only papers they cite are their own.
  
• It is poorly communicated - mistakes in grammar/spelling if a paper, flashing GIF's if it is a website.
  
• They promise to cure (or otherwise better) you with Quantum Mechanics or otherwise want to exchange their groundbreaking work in fundamental physics for money.
  

I want to note that there are Researchers-who-are-not-Sane and Researchers-whose-ideas-are-ignored. These are different. They tend to be affiliated with reasonable institutions and cite others' papers, though they may be astoundingly bitter and possibly have bad Hygiene.