There is a very great deal of junk science published by neuroscientists, along with much research that is sound. That so much junk science would appear is not surprising at all, given the research customs that prevail among neuroscientists.
Let us look at a hypothetical example of the type of junk science that so often appears. Let us imagine a scientist named Jack who wishes to show that a particular protein in the brain (let's call it the XYZ protein) is essential for memory. We can imagine Jack doing a series of experiments, each one taking one week of his time.
Jack thinks up a simple design for this experiment. Some mice will be genetically engineered so that they do not have the XYZ protein. Then the mice will be given a memory test. First, the mice will be placed in a cage, with a shock plate between the mouse and the cheese. When the mouse walks over the shock plate to go directly to the cheese, the mouse will be shocked. Later the mouse will be placed in the cage again. It will be recorded whether the mouse takes an indirect path to get the cheese (as if it remembered the previous shock it got on the shock plate), or whether the mouse just goes directly to the cheese (as if it did not remember the previous shock it got on the shock plate). The visual below shows the experiment: