4 ms·
> I know I'm not going to trust the Lancet or the NEJM ever again. Wait, what?? The fact that the lancet was able to determine that there were validity concer
by sparrc 6y ago
> I know I'm not going to trust the Lancet or the NEJM ever again.
Wait, what??
The fact that the lancet was able to determine that there were validity concerns with the data and issue an expression of concern in less than 2 weeks is proof that the system works.
Science is never 100% certain. The media has never been a good source of scientific information and probably never will be.
edit: also, if you "don't trust the Lancet or NEJM" then you don't trust a huge number of the treatments available to you at the hospital. These are two of the most important and eminent medical journals in the world and many life-saving treatments began as articles in these journals.
- cm2187 6y agoIt is proof that the peer review failed, on a topic that the Lancet couldn't ignore was high profile. I have no idea what the motivation of the reviewers were, but given how political this molecule has become, I can't help having a terrible doubt.
- pavon 6y agoPeer review is never intended to be an independent audit of the data for any journal. Reviewers check the methodology, look for obvious mistakes or oversights, provide suggestions for clarification or improvement in the text and for high-demand journals, weigh in on their opinion of the importance of the study. All of the feedback is based on the paper itself, so outright fraud usually is not caught at this stage unless the malicious author is exceptionally sloppy. It is later when other scientists start working to replicate or expand on the study that they request access to the data, and dig into the details. This is when most instances of scientific misconduct are found, and this paper is no exception. In science, publication is the start of the peer review process, not the end.