3 ms·
Well as for retractions and such, these mistakes happen in all journals. But the real issue is the politics. I think The Spectator had a quite neutral take on t
by jruohonen 4y ago
Well as for retractions and such, these mistakes happen in all journals. But the real issue is the politics. I think The Spectator had a quite neutral take on this:
https://thespectator.com/topic/lancet-becoming-political/ https://thespectator.com/topic/lancet-becoming-political/
In my opinion this kind of activity is detrimental for the trust in science and the legitimacy of it. If he wants to engage in politics, he should write op-ends in newspapers like everyone else with a political agenda.
- yyyk 4y agoIn the Lancet's case, it has always been politics. For example, the Iraq war study they published was utter bunk on multiple levels***, and a normal review would have caught that. The politics is often defencible or at least debatable, the problem is that the Lancet just doesn't hold studies that support the editor's already-decided-upon positions to much if any scrutiny... ** A comparison being centered on wartorn Sunni areas which were in power before the war, not being representative of the other areas; A prewar death rate half that of any other independent count; Ignoring the way the secret jail system worked before the war, etc.