Our model is based on understanding scientific publications as arguments, which present a narrative of experi- ments or observations, the data obtained, and a reasoned interpretation (“finding”) of the data’s meaning [38]. Such arguments present a line of reasoning, to a “best” explan- ation of the data (“abductive reasoning”, “inference to the best explanation”, “ampliative inference”) [39-42] taken in context with the published findings of others in the field. The determination whether or not a finding is correct, is made over time by the community of the researcher’s peers. What claims are considered true, may evolve over time, based on re-examination of evidence and development of new evidence. Assertions may be criticised and refuted. Thus scientific reasoning is defeasible [43].