Very recently I left a comment in a blog that was accusing an OR/MS academic paper, published in one of our flagship journals, to be 'little scientific' or lacking of scientifical base.
Could you imagine why the author of the post was arguing the forenamed article was not able to be considered as scientific?. Just because the sample of the study was 'narrow' (I would translate this, trying to get into the abusing writer's mind, as 'high sampling error', 'wide confidence interval', etc), he was treating the whole paper as non-scientific.
Of course, my main argument was to advise about methodology, the scientific method. Someone could have said the article lacking of enough observable data, could even try to deffend the data gathering was biased, or even that the links between the hypothesis and the conclusions was totally a mess. However… you tell me!