Latest news with #peerreview
ABC News
a day ago
- General
- ABC News
Can we trust scientific papers?
Robyn Williams: The Science Show on Radio National. Over in America, universities are facing massive cuts, the loss of scientific staff and misinformation in the press, as well as on the dreaded social media. So what can we make of some of that? Here's Len Fisher who writes in the Blue Mountains and does research in Bristol. Len Fisher: How do you know when to trust a scientist? For that matter, how does a scientist know when to trust a scientist? These questions are stimulated by an article that Robyn has brought to my attention. James Heathers from the Linnaeus University in Sweden claims that up to one scientific paper in seven may be at least partly fake and not to be trusted. So what is going wrong? Is Heathers paper itself partly fake? If not, what can we do to protect both science and the wider community from such fakery? Let's start at the beginning. The trust of scientists in published science relies, or at least it used to rely, on peer review. Careful and critical examination of the work by one or more experienced fellow scientists who may award a pass, fail, or go back and try harder. One problem with this process is the possibility of favouritism or even delaying the publication of a paper so that the reviewer, who will sometimes be working along similar lines, can get there first. I've seen it happen, although it does seem to be rare. A more likely reason for delay is that reviewers are not paid for their work, and with many pressures on their time, reviewing tends to be put on the back burner. This gets to be real problem in a rapidly moving field, where younger workers are often involved and where priority can be important both for self-esteem and for actual promotion or the awarding of a degree. To get round the problem, authors these days tend to resort to online publication prior to peer review and conventional journal publication. In fact, Heather's paper itself was published in this way, in what is called the Open Science Framework. It has not yet been peer reviewed. Does this matter for trust? At least Heather's paper is out there in the open, subject to critical commentary. Some of that commentary has been pretty devastating. One fellow scientist, an expert in the sort of meta-analysis that Heathers uses, claims that Heathers' falsely labels studies with some problem as definitely being fake and incorrectly lumps together different studies measuring different phenomena. To his credit, Heathers accepts these criticisms in essence and even admits that his work is wildly non-systematic averaging as it does the results of 12 different studies of fakery in different fields and using different criteria. But he says that this is the best that he can do with the data available. So far, so what? This is a squabble between scientists, and let's leave them to it. But the real problems start when the work impinges on the wider world. Scientific misconduct undermines public trust in science. It is rightly a matter of public concern. So studies like those of Heathers find their way into the media, but with no mention of the essential caveats that, in Heathers' case, could well have meant that it would never have passed peer review. Even with quite careful journalistic treatment of the caveats, the majority of people who come across the story are likely to notice only the headline. 'One in seven science papers are fake'. Not even one in seven science papers could be fake. Such headlines provide a convenient reason to reject scientific findings for those whose beliefs are challenged by these findings. A prime current example is the political dismissal of even very rigorous studies on the role of fossil fuels in global warming. Let us return to the underlying problem, which is the current erosion of trust in science. What can be done to restore and maintain trust, both of scientists with each other and of the wider public the science? The first thing to note is that most published papers are essentially trivial, small studies that receive at most one or two citations and whose results are of little concern except to the authors, whose quota of publications has increased, and their small circle of specialists. When a paper does address an important issue or reveal an important new finding that is of wider interest, then other scientists are likely either to repeat or to use the results. If there is fakery or sloppy science involved in the original publication, then hopefully the truth will out. Unfortunately, this process can take some time, especially if the original work was convincing and fitted scientific preconceptions, as happened with the attribution of Alzheimer's disease to the presence of protein plaques in the spaces between brain cells. Also, replication can be difficult, or even impossible when specialist techniques sometimes possessed only by the originator are involved, or when conclusions are based on large-scale surveys that may have had inadequate controls. There is also the very human problem that scientists are likelier to accept the results of their fellows, especially the senior ones, without going to the bother of replication. This can be a problem of money or resources. Whatever the reason, it is a systemic problem in some disciplines witness the current well-publicised crisis of reproducibility in the psychology literature. In general, however, replication, or even just its possibility, remains a powerful tool for the evocation of trust among scientists. The wonderful online retraction watch reports such exposures on a routine basis. Another welcome development is that of online pre-publication facilities such as arXiv which has the very peculiar spelling of small a small r capital X small i small v, which filters papers on the basis of the established reputations of the authors or recommendation by an established scientist. In fact, as I sit writing this talk, my collaborator on another publication, the Swedish polymath Anders Sandberg, is sitting in the corner of the same room submitting a paper of ours to Archive Physics but they won't accept it until it receives the approval of another known expert in the field, and even then it will be subject to moderation. It is a pity that this same process can't be applied to books, especially those that make exaggerated claims based on little or no evidence. A recent New Scientist article has pointed out how few of such books are fact-checked. This may be just as well for the profits of the publishers, who often rely on the sales of such books. The New Scientist itself employs two levels of fact-checking. But facts are dull, and sadly they are often trumped by simplistic exaggerations, especially when these appeal to pre-established prejudices. Maybe the answer is for scientists to learn to share more fully the very real excitement that comes from the pursuit and capture of facts, and their sharing with other scientists in an established atmosphere of trust. Only then will public trust in science already high in most countries, grow to overcome misleading stories about its very human vicissitudes. Robyn Williams: Len Fisher is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New South Wales.
Forbes
15-05-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Dismantling Medicine's White Wall Of Silence
Medicine's White Wall is harmful in more ways than one. In law enforcement, the 'Blue Wall of Silence' refers to the unwritten code among officers that discourages reporting a colleague's misconduct. The message is clear: if you come for one of us, you come for all of us. It's a powerful and dangerous loyalty. Medicine has its own version of the Blue Wall, the White Wall. It is less visible, rarely dramatized, and seldom discussed. But it's real—and just as harmful. When a physician is disruptive, unethical, or even dangerous, the chatter in private circles can be loud. Hospital lounges, back hallways, and group chats hum with warnings and anecdotes. But outside those safe spaces? Silence. Formal reporting—whether to a hospital peer review committee, a licensing board, or an oversight body—is vanishingly rare. It is generally reserved for the most blatant, indefensible cases. For everything else, the default is inaction. I've encountered countless examples: Where does this silence come from? Some of it is fear—fear of retribution, lawsuits, or institutional backlash. But more often, it's cultural. Medicine prizes loyalty. We are taught to protect our own. There's an unspoken belief that reporting a colleague is betrayal, not courage. But silence has a cost. When we fail to regulate ourselves, others fill the vacuum. Payers implement blunt instruments like prior authorization and step therapy. Regulators impose rigid compliance frameworks. Plaintiffs' attorneys amplify public distrust. Patients suffer. And physician autonomy erodes. We often pride ourselves on being part of a profession—not a trade, not a business, but a calling with higher standards. But professionalism demands accountability. If we do not police our own ranks, we abdicate that identity. It doesn't have to be this way. Accountability can be developmental, not punitive. It can identify struggling colleagues before harm occurs. It can create pathways for mentorship, coaching, and support. And yes, when needed, it must create consequences for those who should not be practicing. We need new norms—where raising concerns is seen as an act of integrity, not disloyalty. We need protections for whistleblowers and leaders who listen without retaliating. Most of all, we need to confront the fear and complicity that have calcified within our professional culture. Medicine's White Wall is not immovable. But dismantling it will require courage—from each of us. And if we truly care about our patients and the future of our field, we'll start tearing it down today.
Forbes
07-05-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Medical Journals Under Scrutiny From Justice Department
Prior Editor of New England Journal of Medicine Dr. Marcia Angell holding papers while standing ... More outside office; journal's logo on glass door in back. (Photo by) Getty Images The interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has been sending letters to a handful of influential medical journals asking questions concerning influence from funders, competing viewpoints and misinformation. Among the journals targeted include the New England Journal of Medicine, CHEST and JAMA. Dr. Eric Rubin, the editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, said , 'we were concerned because there were questions that suggested that we may be biased in the research we report.' These threatening letters to multiple medical journals set a dangerous precedent to science and journalism because free speech in medical journals should be protected under the First Amendment. Medical journals, particularly the ones that have been targeted by the federal government, engage in a rigorous peer-review process before articles are accepted for publication. When an article is submitted to a journal, most medical journals utilize double-blinded peer review, meaning the article is sent out typically to two to four medical experts to assess the validity of the manuscript and if publication is warranted. The reviewers have no knowledge of who the authors are, and the authors similarly do not know who their reviewers are. In addition, authors are always asked to acknowledge any funding they have received for the research they are presenting and writing about. In this way, medical journals are constantly and meticulously reducing and eliminating bias in the publication process. Medical journals are critical for the general public because they serve as the foundation for evidence-based medicine. Medical journals play an integral role in shaping healthcare guidelines, vaccine recommendations as well as influencing preventive screening guidelines for important diseases like cancer. They ensure this important information is accessible for the general public to understand and support informed decision-making to empower doctors, patients and news outlets to make informed decisions about health. Journals are responsible for disseminating cutting-edge research that leads to improved diagnostics and potential cures for diseases that could be life-threatening. Finally, the rigorous peer-review from scientific journals ensures that all the medical information reaching the public is accurate and credible. Make no mistake about this- the letters sent to some of the most influential medical journals by the federal government are a threat to science, free speech and public health. These letters are an attempt to influence scientists and potentially silence them, particularly if what they are publishing is contradictory to what the current administration believes about vaccines, diseases and health. The Trump administration as already purged important health information from websites, halted flu vaccination campaigns and curtailed studies about misinformation. Medical journals should be free and safe from any sort of political censorship. These journals do not spread propaganda, they are carefully peer-reviewed and are designed to educate Americans and the public with evidence-based information that help save lives. It is through medical journals we know that vaccines are safe and effective in combating measles, as opposed to other therapies like steroids or cod liver oil. When evidence-based information, particularly with respect to health gets censored, it impacts the health of all Americans. It provides a medium for misinformation to go unchecked and spread instantaneously, faster than any virus given how fast information can spread on social media. Americans are already paying the price on misinformation, given the measles outbreaks throughout America with parents giving their children vitamin A as opposed to vaccines in an attempt to treat and prevent measles. Guidance for health should never be shaped by a particularly ideology, but rather by data and evidence, and this is precisely what medical journals provide. The right to scientific expression is fundamental to democracy, the first amendment and any free society. If the federal government interferes with the content of medical journals, they are not just silencing scientists, they are silencing all Americans. Americans lose access to high quality information that can be life-saving, they lose the ability to make informed decisions on what medications to take and they lose the ability to decide if they need to vaccinate themselves and their families against an infectious disease. If medical journals are silenced; democracy, free speech, health, well-being and our very lives are all on the line.
