I think research quality isn't the primary problem. Yes there are bad quality papers being published but it usually highly depends on the institution. The problem here really is unending demand for novelty. I find it weird that academia has a very high risk appetite for research that's "shiny and new" instead of focusing on reproducibility. They'd rather have a bunch of "new" topics which has flaws in their methodologies rather than verifying old ones which has a solid foundation but boring. The thing is, a lot of advisors are incentivized to do so especially in private universities where they can advertise these new papers just to entice more students to enroll with their exuberant tuition.

I'm speaking from a first-hand experience in a private university whose image heavily depends on what "shiny and new" thing their students somehow invent. My university spends so much advertising those things and constantly raise prices at the same time, a shady business model. One of my business professors, who teach in the same institution, also subtly judge the ethics of these kinds of universities.

A lot of institutes are also pressuring their PIs to not only produce novel work but also highly translatable and patentable work. I know of some institutes that want to preview any work a PI wants to publish or speak about in a public venue, in case any of it can be patented. Keep in mind that most of these places are funded through government grants and tax payers but none of the money from these patents is ever funneled back to them.

I'm not in a position to do any of that, sorry. What do you recommend I do right now to obtain the best available public health information for myself and my family?

Not the person you're replying to but

> What do you recommend I do right now [...] ?

(1) Obtain a solid understanding of statistics, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) collect multiple viewpoints, data and arguments related to that hypothesis, (4) sift through the collected data and judge their quality based on reproducibility and history of the author, (5) be prepared to not reach any solid conclusion

Making a decision for your and your family's health is orthogonal to all of that.

For public health choices for your family, I say do what the majority of experts in the field are doing. And only listen to actual experts specifically in the field of study that pertains to the public health issue. I.e., don't listen to a non-practicing celebrity cardiologist (Dr Oz) about immunology and virology.

For example, you will be hard pressed to find a virologist, immunologist, or epidemiologist that isn't vaccinated and having their 5yrs and older kids vaccinated.

I also like to get my health information direct from doctor groups like the American association of pediatrics. Another good resource is directly on the website of groups like the mayo clinic, Cleveland clinic, or the editorial board of the New England journal of medicine. All of these groups are made up of many expert doctors and issue guidance based on input from a lot of experts.

They are rewarded for impact, which weighs quality over quantity, but only in a complex way that equally weights social dynamics mixed with profit motives. i.e. journals.

How do we change those incentives? Who gets to determine the quality threshold?

The journal editors have a lot of power. As a start they could devote at least half of their articles to reproduction studies instead of novel research.

Reproducibility.

I would go further and say to not frame the culture problem as economic at all.