classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view


Fog Top

Picture has reported that the editorial board of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH), a leading scientific journal on global health hazards and on criticizing the corporate manipulation of science and policy, has resigned. NDRC reports that the mass resignation is in response to the following: "...a new publisher appears to be transforming it into a mouthpiece for industry consultants."

Is this an isolated incident? An article posted on in April 2017 titled Retractions & Errors Driving Loss of Faith in the Peer Review Process chronicles a larger history of an overall broken peer review scientific process, its shortcomings, and its deep infiltration by multinational corporate interests. Below are a few damning admissions by those who have had intimate knowledge of the inner workings and vast flaws now baked into the integrity of the peer review process and information contained in many scientific and medical journals of note. 

In 2015 Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet published a shocking paper in the Lancet titled ‘What is medicine’s 5 sigma?’ Horton writes: 

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue….We aid and abet the worst behaviors. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals…The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world."

Former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell published a research article in 2009 titled ‘Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption.’ In the piece Angell states, among other damning claims, the following:

In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results.

Widely reported in May of 2015, Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade, said there was no evidence that peer review was a good method of detecting errors and claimed that “most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense”. Smith went further to say “If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don’t have evidence of its benefit…It’s time to slaughter the sacred cow.”

The public appears to be witnessing a slow motion admittance of continuous research fraud resulting in real human damage. How can science be settled if there is, and has been, corruption in the peer review process?