This is absolutely shocking. I haven't seen this story anywhere and I follow a lot of news. How haven't major news sources all over the world picked up this story? The initial study and WHOs...
This is absolutely shocking.
I haven't seen this story anywhere and I follow a lot of news. How haven't major news sources all over the world picked up this story? The initial study and WHOs reaction gained massive attention and front page coverage all over the world seemingly in every language under the sun.
I really hope this sparks a debate on how rigorous the peer review process needs to be, private publishing being the gatekeeper for publicly funded science, and how public institutions rely and evaluate research for use in policy decisions.
How could The Lancet end up publishing such a flawed study in the first place? How did it pass their quality control, when seemingly simple google searches on a host of mentioned facts and figures in the manuscripts should have thrown up scores of red flags?
Doesn't political bias seem like a likely culprit? I don't know the political affiliation of The Lancet but in general scientists (understandably) aren't known to be big fans of Trump, so I...
How could The Lancet end up publishing such a flawed study in the first place? How did it pass their quality control, when seemingly simple google searches on a host of mentioned facts and figures in the manuscripts should have thrown up scores of red flags?
Doesn't political bias seem like a likely culprit? I don't know the political affiliation of The Lancet but in general scientists (understandably) aren't known to be big fans of Trump, so I wouldn't be surprised if the some or most of the reviewers of this study wanted, at some level, its conclusions to be valid, and if that affected the rigor of the review process. Bias is not unheard of in scientific research.
As someone who regularly reads scientific journals, this isn't really all that out of the ordinary. Papers get retracted all the time - it just seems plausible at this point that it may have been...
This is absolutely shocking.
As someone who regularly reads scientific journals, this isn't really all that out of the ordinary. Papers get retracted all the time - it just seems plausible at this point that it may have been intentionally manipulated for political purposes which is rarer than intentionally manipulated due to researcher bias.
How could The Lancet end up publishing such a flawed study in the first place?
Most journals are problematic in what they choose to publish. The review process makes some assumptions that they probably shouldn't, such as assuming that people are submitting in good faith.
How did it pass their quality control
There is no quality control - the quality control is on the paper itself; not on the data it comes from. There's typically a cursory review, but if it's coming from an established company/database, there's assumptions made.
The hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine study published in The Lancet on May 22 has now been retracted by its authors: https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246
This is absolutely shocking.
I haven't seen this story anywhere and I follow a lot of news. How haven't major news sources all over the world picked up this story? The initial study and WHOs reaction gained massive attention and front page coverage all over the world seemingly in every language under the sun.
I really hope this sparks a debate on how rigorous the peer review process needs to be, private publishing being the gatekeeper for publicly funded science, and how public institutions rely and evaluate research for use in policy decisions.
How could The Lancet end up publishing such a flawed study in the first place? How did it pass their quality control, when seemingly simple google searches on a host of mentioned facts and figures in the manuscripts should have thrown up scores of red flags?
Thanks a ton for sharing!
Doesn't political bias seem like a likely culprit? I don't know the political affiliation of The Lancet but in general scientists (understandably) aren't known to be big fans of Trump, so I wouldn't be surprised if the some or most of the reviewers of this study wanted, at some level, its conclusions to be valid, and if that affected the rigor of the review process. Bias is not unheard of in scientific research.
As someone who regularly reads scientific journals, this isn't really all that out of the ordinary. Papers get retracted all the time - it just seems plausible at this point that it may have been intentionally manipulated for political purposes which is rarer than intentionally manipulated due to researcher bias.
Most journals are problematic in what they choose to publish. The review process makes some assumptions that they probably shouldn't, such as assuming that people are submitting in good faith.
There is no quality control - the quality control is on the paper itself; not on the data it comes from. There's typically a cursory review, but if it's coming from an established company/database, there's assumptions made.
The hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine study published in The Lancet on May 22 has now been retracted by its authors: https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246