3 ms·

>in a 2nd tier food journal I'm not taking either side here because I don't know enough to feel confident doing so, but I do have an issue with statements like

by zionic 4y ago

>in a 2nd tier food journal I'm not taking either side here because I don't know enough to feel confident doing so, but I do have an issue with statements like this. The paper should stand or fall on its own merits, if we only accept content from specific "tiers" we open the door to scientific corruption.

rzwitserloot 4y ago
It would perhaps be best if the first 'dump' of a paper is met with essentially no attention or news coverage at all until it's been properly reviewed and fully studied. However, the world has 7 billion people on it and, ya know, herding cats and all that. That's a pipe dream. But perhaps we can strive to temper initial reactions and make sure we post the followups once said studies are done. Until then, _IF_ we need to the thoroughly disdainful thing of judging a book by its cover because reading it takes some time, its a fair comment to state: Boy that cover sucks.
loceng 4y ago
Demonizing and putdowns/name calling and down votes are the name of their game to try to suppress critical conversation.
mikeyouse 4y ago
Alas, that's not the way the publishing world works. If a study on vaccination ends up in a food & toxicology journal, there's typically a reason for that! And if it ends up in the 29th most impactful food & toxicology journal[1], there's typically a reason for that too. [1] - https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005 https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005
- Izkata 4y ago
  Calling it a "food toxicology journal" is significantly downplaying its scope. Even just the name of it is "food and chemical", and this is what it says about itself: > Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), an internationally renowned journal, that publishes original research articles and reviews on toxic effects, in animals and humans, of natural or synthetic chemicals occurring in the human environment with particular emphasis on food, drugs, and chemicals, including agricultural and industrial safety, and consumer product safety. Areas such as safety evaluation of novel foods and ingredients, biotechnologically-derived products, and nanomaterials are included in the scope of the journal. FCT also encourages submission of papers on inter-relationships between nutrition and toxicology and on in vitro techniques, particularly those fostering the 3 Rs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxicology/about/aims-and-scope https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxi...
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Point taken that their scope is more broad than food tox, but again, read their description of what they publish and then ask yourself whether safety profiles of vaccines fit into that description. You can do one better - search their records for all of the prior safety work they've done on vaccines: https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=vaccine&pub=Food%20and%20Chemical%20Toxicology&cid=271257&date=1995-2019&show=100 https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=vaccine&pub=Food%20a... Given that they have absolutely no history of assessing overall vaccine safety or toxicology, how prepared do you think they are to appropriately assess this one? Do you think the reviewers who work with this journal have the expertise to properly weight the claims in the submitted paper? Vaccine safety research is published in vaccine journals, or medical journals, or infectious disease journals, or immunology journals, or rheumatology journals because those journals all have experts that can actually critically review the submissions. When people publish 'controversial' research for a field of study, in a journal outside the scope of that field, they're promoting nonsense ~100% of the time.
dangerface 4y ago
> The paper should stand or fall on its own merits, if we only accept content from specific "tiers" we open the door to scientific corruption. I think the fact the paper couldn't get a reputable publisher does speak to the merits of the paper. If you think you are able to interpret the merits of the paper on its own without the prerequisite qualifications to understand the merits of the paper, you simply have no idea how wrong you are.
- zionic 4y ago
  Isn’t that just naked elitism? If you reject anything the major papers don’t publish how are you any different then a 15th century peasant following the clergy? Let’s be real, you don’t understand any of this either. You’re simply choosing who to believe.
  - dangerface 4y ago
    > Let’s be real, you don’t understand any of this either. You’re simply choosing who to believe. Thats my argument, don't disagree with me and then try to counter with my own argument. No one understands any of this so why choose the opinion of a food journal over the opinion of a medical journal when the topic is of a medical subject? Because you think your opinion is more elite than the opinion of medical researchers.

by zionic 4y ago

rzwitserloot 4y ago

It would perhaps be best if the first 'dump' of a paper is met with essentially no attention or news coverage at all until it's been properly reviewed and fully studied. However, the world has 7 billion people on it and, ya know, herding cats and all that. That's a pipe dream. But perhaps we can strive to temper initial reactions and make sure we post the followups once said studies are done. Until then, _IF_ we need to the thoroughly disdainful thing of judging a book by its cover because reading it takes some time, its a fair comment to state: Boy that cover sucks.

loceng 4y ago

Demonizing and putdowns/name calling and down votes are the name of their game to try to suppress critical conversation.

mikeyouse 4y ago

Alas, that's not the way the publishing world works. If a study on vaccination ends up in a food & toxicology journal, there's typically a reason for that! And if it ends up in the 29th most impactful food & toxicology journal[1], there's typically a reason for that too. [1] - https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005 https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005

Izkata 4y ago
Calling it a "food toxicology journal" is significantly downplaying its scope. Even just the name of it is "food and chemical", and this is what it says about itself: > Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), an internationally renowned journal, that publishes original research articles and reviews on toxic effects, in animals and humans, of natural or synthetic chemicals occurring in the human environment with particular emphasis on food, drugs, and chemicals, including agricultural and industrial safety, and consumer product safety. Areas such as safety evaluation of novel foods and ingredients, biotechnologically-derived products, and nanomaterials are included in the scope of the journal. FCT also encourages submission of papers on inter-relationships between nutrition and toxicology and on in vitro techniques, particularly those fostering the 3 Rs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxicology/about/aims-and-scope https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxi...
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Point taken that their scope is more broad than food tox, but again, read their description of what they publish and then ask yourself whether safety profiles of vaccines fit into that description. You can do one better - search their records for all of the prior safety work they've done on vaccines: https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=vaccine&pub=Food%20and%20Chemical%20Toxicology&cid=271257&date=1995-2019&show=100 https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=vaccine&pub=Food%20a... Given that they have absolutely no history of assessing overall vaccine safety or toxicology, how prepared do you think they are to appropriately assess this one? Do you think the reviewers who work with this journal have the expertise to properly weight the claims in the submitted paper? Vaccine safety research is published in vaccine journals, or medical journals, or infectious disease journals, or immunology journals, or rheumatology journals because those journals all have experts that can actually critically review the submissions. When people publish 'controversial' research for a field of study, in a journal outside the scope of that field, they're promoting nonsense ~100% of the time.

dangerface 4y ago

> The paper should stand or fall on its own merits, if we only accept content from specific "tiers" we open the door to scientific corruption. I think the fact the paper couldn't get a reputable publisher does speak to the merits of the paper. If you think you are able to interpret the merits of the paper on its own without the prerequisite qualifications to understand the merits of the paper, you simply have no idea how wrong you are.

zionic 4y ago
Isn’t that just naked elitism? If you reject anything the major papers don’t publish how are you any different then a 15th century peasant following the clergy? Let’s be real, you don’t understand any of this either. You’re simply choosing who to believe.
- dangerface 4y ago
  > Let’s be real, you don’t understand any of this either. You’re simply choosing who to believe. Thats my argument, don't disagree with me and then try to counter with my own argument. No one understands any of this so why choose the opinion of a food journal over the opinion of a medical journal when the topic is of a medical subject? Because you think your opinion is more elite than the opinion of medical researchers.