Fake Cancer Study Spotlights Bogus Science Journals

[coachjeff]

Sad but true story, which shows that just because something has been "published in a paper" doesn't make it true.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/

[katoman]

This is a very sad situation. Especially so for people who may have received false hope from someone else pointing out the bogus study and believe it is legitimate. Personally, I feel the organization putting forth this spoof is just as guilty as the journals that published without critical peer-review.

[costello22]

This is a very sad situation. Especially so for people who may have received false hope from someone else pointing out the bogus study and believe it is legitimate. Personally, I feel the organization putting forth this spoof is just as guilty as the journals that published without critical peer-review.

I don't think it was ever published.

[M Levac]

We have our own peer review process right here. Every day we discuss all kinds of studies and point out major flaws left and right. And we're not even experts. I have an idea. Traditional science was done in obscurity. Journals were few, expensive, and mainly distributed within the scientific community. Today, with the intarwebs, everybody and his dog has virtually unlimited access to the same scientific information and more. However, we - the peeples - are not as organized as those Traditional Journals. We got isolated bloggers (and forum members here) who do their own thing, who could be experts too like doctors and scientists, but without the expert back-and-forth that would happen internally with those journals. They're all army-of-ones. We got PubMed, but it's more like a repository of everything that's been published, not specifically a review journal. We got Wikipedia with a certain review process to validate source information, but not necessarily a debate forum where arguments pro and con can be put forward to (in)validate a particular paper.

So, my idea is to get organized. Two ways. First, build a list of contributing experts, and then establish a proper protocol for debate for (in)validation of whatever paper is being reviewed. Free to consult, but maybe a modest pay-per-contribution (1$ perhaps) to sieve out fanboy armies that would otherwise flood the comments as we often see in online newspapers for example. Not-for-profit. This also serves as incentive to write a proper review, and not just one-liners to bash the author or something. Both under-review and published papers would be reviewed, because as we know from experience on this forum, even published papers can be full of holes. Contributing experts not allowed anonymity. Credentials optional. Arguments should stand on their own merit. Sources and citations required (minimum 1). Only 1 review per contributor, only 1 rebuttal-from-OP per review. So we could have multiple reviews due to multiple contributors, but only 1 rebuttal by the OP for each of those reviews. Due to pay-per-contribution format, serves as incentive to write a proper paper from the start. Post-publication editing not allowed. Errors are permanent. More incentive to write a goddamn proper paper from the getgo.

Think of it as a sort of blog, but with multiple authors where only contributors can post and comment. The "blog" owner only serves as maintenance. Imagine if Richard Feinman wrote a paper, then Denise Minger wrote a review for that paper, then Feinmman wrote a rebuttal to that review, and that would be it for that paper-review-rebuttal tiny thread. Another contributor - like Taubes for example - could also write a review for the same paper, then Feinman could write a rebuttal for that review, and so forth. But instead of opinions, we got actual honest-to-goodness genuine scientific papers followed by even more rude and crude criticism of those papers, free to consult by all.

That fake cancer paper? Wouldn't have passed go.

[teaser]

Sad but true story, which shows that just because something has been "published in a paper" doesn't make it true.



I think this is the take-home message whether something has been peer-reviewed or not. We shouldn't apply less scrutiny to an idea on the basis of authority, anyways. Look where respecting doctors gets you when it comes to nutrition. Who should you listen to? Atkins? Rosedale? Jack Kruse? Dean Ornish? We will never be free from the need to use our own judgement, whether we're up to the task or not.

[M Levac]

That's so true, Teaser. My own personal experience proves this. I cannot rely on a piece of paper with words like "diploma" or "doctorate". But I can rely on my own wits. I can also recognize others who do the same, there's a bunch of them right here on this forum. Won't name names, protect the innocents and all that. :)

[katoman]

Won't name names, protect the innocents and all that. :) :lol: I'm very thankful for the knowledge-base of this site. I have very little critical-thinking skills so rely heavily on the data provided by the back-and-forths submitted by our members.

Proof of this lack of critical thinking is I actually thought the article said some of the journals (out of 255?) accepted the article for publication. So does this mean none of them were actually stupid enough to publish the bogus study? Once submitted, how did the original author keep the bogus study from actually being published? Must re-read article...

I'm doubly thankful that there are actually scientific-minded individuals here.

[WereBear]

When I first got here my mind was blown away with the great science and reasoned thinking on display. It helped me a great deal with rebooting my thoughts on nutrition.

I like the "crowd-sourcing" idea; I know Wikipedia gets bashed in certain circles, but they do try hard to keep things on an even keel, and even their detractors admit it's a great opening act for research.