Hopefully the following will be a useful example to some here. Came across it while searching for suitable references to add to a recent thread in Physics & Maths. Back in 2010, findings covered in the following article were hailed as a breakthrough achievement: Most precise test yet of Einstein’s gravitational redshift - Berkeley News http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/02/17/gravitational_redshift/ A revealing passage: This was not exactly a no-name endeavour. We tend to implicitly trust such credentialed experts especially if the theory details are only accessible to experts. So it got to be published in the prestigious journal Nature: H. M¨uller, A. Peters, and S. Chu, Nature 463, 926 (2010) Unpaywalled preprint at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2485 With a lengthy list of contributors. And of course having passed peer review by eminently qualified referees appointed by a panel at Nature. One expects that pretty well guarantees reliability. Not in this case. A rebuttal came out the following year: https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1194 Also with a significant list of contributors. At the end of it all, the nay crowd were vindicated, as briefly commented on here: https://www.emis.de/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2014-4/articlese2.html More bluntly, the original team including a Nobel prize winner in the relevant field, made a fundamental conceptual blunder that made it past prestigious peer review. Such relative rarities happen from time to time. Unfortunately some are in the habit of giving lip service to but never taking the underlying lesson to heart. Respect expert's opinions and conclusions but always keep an open mind.