Not that specifically but that's certainly one whisp of smoke that might be found should:
> (Has this) evidence been examined sceptically?
The implication there is that the "evidence" quoted might not exist, might be a stretch of translation, misreading of spidery handwriting, or spun whole from new cloth to fit a narrative.
I personally read "sceptically" to imply the idea of seeing whether the study falls victim to significance bias -- e.g. once you see it, you see it a lot, but is it an indicator of a widespread habit, or just a not-particularly-unusual one?
Edit: And indeed if you read on a bit about Ekrich, he suffers from sleep disorders for which he takes medication. That's a potential risk factor for significance/confirmation bias here, I'd have thought. But there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that fabrication is being suggested.
That's my partial, not exhaustive, list of the kinds of things that have turned up in past skeptical examinations of researcher claims.
Many times, of course, researchers are supported in their claims by skeptical examination.
It's of interest that you personally chose a limited reading of "skeptical examination", whether that's due to limited experience or an innate tendancy to only imagine the best behaviour in people I wouldn't speculate.
> It's of interest that you personally chose a limited reading of "skeptical examination", whether that's due to limited experience or an innate tendancy to only imagine the best behaviour in people I wouldn't speculate.
OK, now you're being a bit silly.
I assume error over malice. It's not only imagining the best, it's also statistically and ethically a better way.
