Two times at a senator confirmation hearing at the end of last month, America’s new health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., raised a study peer-reviewed by a specific “Mawson” that came out a week ago. I did. “That article is by Mawson,” he told Senator Bill Cassidy before spelling out the author’s name for emphasis on “Mawson.” And to Bernie Sanders: “Senator… look at Mauson’s research. Look at that research.”
“Mawson” is Anthony Mawson, an epidemiologist and former scholar who has published several papers claiming the relationship between childhood vaccines and autism. (That connection is thoroughly done It was exposed. ) his latest on the subject, and what Kennedy mentioned; It appeared In journals not indexed by the National Library of Medicine or other organizations that may provide scientific reliability. One of the key members of the journal’s editorial board, a Stubborn supporters Lost to treat covid-19 using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin Five papers To retract. Another member is Didiera Ult (the name is the Journal’s Spelling mistakes); Retraction Watch Leaderboardwhich is derived from the work of the nonprofit that we co-founded. 31 Retracted. The third and editor of the journal is James Lions Wyler. He has one of his own withdrawals, and in a post from X’s subsequent post, he is a friend and “Bobby Kennedy’s close advisor.” (Mawson said he chose this journal because some mainstream people rejected his manuscript without reviews. Lyons-Weiler did not respond to requests for comment.)
Perhaps scientists or politicians, and certainly civic activists who want to become one of the nation’s leading health politics officials, should be aware that they will support the claim by quoting anything from this researcher or this journal. there is. The fact that it can do so in the setting of the highest interest anyway reveals awkward fact, while honestly stating that the work comes from a peer-reviewed academic publication: scientific literature is floating knowledge It is an important ocean. Amazing amount of junk. Think about the great Pacific garbage patch, but you cannot identify garbage without special knowledge and equipment. And, despite the long-standing issues, up until the last decade or so, no one has tended to support both the necessary expertise and the ability to intervene. The outcome is worse as the Trump administration manages the CDC and other posts about the country’s science breakwater. As RFK Jr. made clear at the confirmation hearing, virtually any supporters or enemies of any claim point to the published work, “See, Science!”
This situation is not so surprising given the number of studies labeled “peer reviews” each year as at least 3 million. The scientific publishing system, as others have pointed out, Under severe tension. Junk paper is a vanity journal or legal thing, some of which are “public or corrupt” spirits that permeate research companies, and a catastrophic business model that has gained much of scientific publication since the early 2000s. This is due to the part.
The model is based on well-intentioned attempts to free scientific findings from subscription paywalls, but is related to what is known as article processing fees. The fees are not insignificant, and sometimes you run into five digit numbers. And the more papers the journal publishes, the more money they bring. Researchers are recruited to feed more and more manuscripts into the beast, but there is a reason why publishers create low journals. Quality work. The result: Too many papers appear every year in too many journals, even proper peer reviews and editing.
The confusion that this creates in the form of unreliable research can be cleaned up to some extent after publication. Certainly, science retraction rates mean how often the journal says it. For some reason, “Don’t rely on this paper” – is growing rapidly. It has risen faster than the publication rate, which has increased by about 10 times over the past decade. That may sound like editors are increasingly weeding literature more actively as they expand. And while the news is good in some respects, it still needs to be withdrawn much more papers than it is being withdrawn. No one admits error, not scientists, publishers, not universities, not funders, not scientists.
The profit motive can beat quality control even by making billions a year, even at the world’s largest publishers. It also burns as fuel a greedy pack of “paper mills” that exposes scientific work to almost every standard, including those used to screen scientific slops generated by AI.
Experienced people may say that the sum of these articles is simply added to human knowledge. simply. Many, or even most, published papers serve no purpose at all. They simply show up… that’s it. No one quotes them With the subsequent work. They leave virtually no trace of their existence.
Of course, someone is sure to make a foolish mass or a US senator, until all new and old research currencies are created equally. Want to argue that childhood vaccines cause autism? Find in journals that you ignore countless other articles that don’t trust the same idea. Consumers are already familiar with this strategy. News outlets use the same tactics when they say chocolate, coffee and red wine are good for a week, but next will kill you.
Scientists don’t even choose to choose. For example, you might argue that despite the existence of such evidence, there is no evidence of the claim.Rejected quote. ” or sometimes cite withdrawn papers. Because they didn’t bother to check the status of those papers or their status was unknown. (Our team built and shared Retraction Watch Database– Became famous among other nonprofits – helps to address the latter issue. )
The pharmaceutical industry can also make the most of its scientific publishing systems. Today, FDA reviewers rely on raw data for drug approval, not the questionable thumbs of Journals peer reviews. However, if the agency is so flawed, if its force or labor is restrained, the scientific literature (with even greater flaws) is not ready to fill the gap.
Kennedy supports at least one idea that will help solve many of these problems. At his confirmation hearing, he suggested that scientific papers should be published along with their peer reviews. (By convention, these assessments maintain both anonymous and secret.) Several publishers have already taken this step. Closed door. We may all be better if such a policy is applied across the literature.
Anyway, publishers should be more honest about their limitations and the fact that many of their papers are unreliable. If they did their part to wipe out literature Retract less valuable paperseven better. Opening science at various stages for more aggressive scrutiny – “Red team“If that’s the case, it will help you. However, such reforms have slowed down and America is now being established amidst a vortex of contested facts. Scientific literature is not equipped to save us.
