I know of excellent biologists funded by NASA, so I'm sure there are good papers out there. I guess I'm wondering whether there's an inverse relationship between a paper's quality and its claims of astrobiological relevance.
Here are the bad papers I'm thinking of:
1. The Mars meteorite paper (1996): Here's a more even-handed evaluation than I would give it.So, commentors, please point me to good astrobiology papers.
2. This nanobacteria paper (2005): I haven't posted about it, but the structures called 'nanobacteria' appear to be just aggregations of calcium salts. I don't think any reputable microbiologist believes that they are bacteria. Here's a critical review from PNAS.
3. The Salmonella in microgravity paper (2007): See this post for my evaluation.
4. The arsenic-DNA paper (2010): See this post for my evaluation.
5. The fossil bacteria in a meteorite paper (2011): See this post for my evaluation.
Just to clarify (after reading the comments so far): What I'm looking for is papers that report competent experimental research and that self-identify as 'astrobiology'.
* Yes, I know that my memory of astrobiology papers is no doubt flawed because only the bad ones stick in my mind. That's why I'm asking.