In "real' science" anyone presenting a research paper's conclusions at any true scientific meeting with a live audience must take questions from anyone. They can't self-select or otherwise limit their audience to a silo of only those who are guaranteed to agree with their lab or mathematical results and conclusions. They also can't hand-wave away others' results and conclusion made from different facts or math.
I've attended international chemical organic free radical meeting lectures by both academic and industry chemists presenting real scientific papers. They all relished debating new scientific ideas in the lecture halls and anywhere else anytime, testing and probing for any flaws in anyone's research or conclusions. That is the only way to advance real scientific knowledge.
I saw the world of chemistry like many other scientific fields begin to fall apart by the mid-1970's in the ever growing "publish or perish" world of academia with ever more complete "garbage" papers published. A nose dive of ethical standards. Just look at how the head of Stanford University resigned quietly during Summer 2023 after his exposure for publishing scientific fraud thanks to his outrageous lack of due care of his lab's subordinates in medical papers he put his name on. Caught not by his scientific peers but by the editorial and reporting staff of the Stanford students' newspaper!!!! Follow the money. Who actually funded his garbage papers? And who allowed the attempted coverup and whitewash for more than a year by the Stanford Board of Trustees who hired him? What golden parachute from the Stanford trust did he get to resign?