I dont agree with your 50% number... In the hard sciences and in peer reviewed journals I feel pretty confident believing what I read... If the experiment is obviously flawed usually it will be caught by peer review... if it isnt caught then others will catch it and publish their findings...

The authors of this fusion article were caught in peer review but the journal Science accepted their paper anyway- this makes me seriously question Science's objectivity... the flaws with the experiment were too glaringly obvious... I would have rejected the article if I were asked to review it and I know only a little about nuclear physics...I am VERY pissed off that they were allowed to publish... There were so many tests they could have done to really prove they had done what they claimed, but they either didnt do them, or they did them and got negative results and didnt report it...

I am NOT saying that they definitely did not get fusion..... what I am saying is that they definitely did a VERY poor job of proving that they got fusion... They avoided the most definative tests and the way they did things is riddled with the possibility of researcher bias and systematic error biasing the results...

just my opinion...
R.L.