5 ms·

Actually, the takeaway for me is that John Bohannon behaved unethically and made a bunch of invalid conclusions.

by ak217 11y ago

javajosh 11y ago
Bohannon tested a system, it failed, and he reported exactly how he tested the system and how it failed. 'The system' in this case is the global food science and health journalism industry. He found that ignorance and laziness is rampant, that journal peer review is non-existent, and skepticism about results and methods is non-existent. He has done a tremendous public service exposing the flaws in a system. With any luck consumers of these information sources will take everything with an enormous, skeptical grain of salt, because the last and best line of defense is your own skepticism critical thinking. You can't delegate thinking.
- leephillips 11y ago
  He did not find that "journal peer review is non-existent". He targeted a low-quality journal that does not send out papers for review to make sure he could claim that the research was "published" when sending out his press releases. That's explicit in the article, which you might find an interesting read
- alexhill 11y ago
  > that journal peer review is non-existent This isn't about peer review, because the paper was knowingly submitted only to journals known not to conduct peer review. Quoting from the article: > We needed to get our study published pronto, but since it was such bad science, we needed to skip peer review altogether. Conveniently, there are lists of fake journal publishers. And later: > The new publisher’s CEO, Carlos Vasquez, emailed Johannes to let him know that we had produced an “outstanding manuscript,” and that for just 600 Euros it “could be accepted directly in our premier journal.” This is really more about science journalism than about science. These kinds of journals are difficult for a lay person to tell apart from actual, scientific journals, but distinguishing between the two is exactly the kind of job a competent science journalist would do. Inept science journalists, on the other hand, give these fake journals a reason to exist by citing them unchallenged.
  - chrischen 11y ago
    And his experiment reveals that the Internet gets its nutrition science from inept science journalists. Think of all the arguments won by people searching google and having this show up. I once won an argument by changing Wikipedia during the argument and showing it to him on his computer.
notimetorelax 11y ago
If anything I applaud John's work, this is a great social experiment.
mcguire 11y ago
And this attitude is one of the bigger reasons he was able to do it.

Actually, the takeaway for me is that John Bohannon behaved unethically and made a bunch of invalid conclusions.

by ak217 11y ago

Actually, the takeaway for me is that John Bohannon behaved unethically and made a bunch of invalid conclusions.

Bohannon tested a system, it failed, and he reported exactly how he tested the system and how it failed. 'The system' in this case is the global food science and health journalism industry. He found that ignorance and laziness is rampant, that journal peer review is non-existent, and skepticism about results and methods is non-existent. He has done a tremendous public service exposing the flaws in a system. With any luck consumers of these information sources will take everything with an enormous, skeptical grain of salt, because the last and best line of defense is your own skepticism critical thinking. You can't delegate thinking.

leephillips 11y ago
He did not find that "journal peer review is non-existent". He targeted a low-quality journal that does not send out papers for review to make sure he could claim that the research was "published" when sending out his press releases. That's explicit in the article, which you might find an interesting read
alexhill 11y ago
> that journal peer review is non-existent This isn't about peer review, because the paper was knowingly submitted only to journals known not to conduct peer review. Quoting from the article: > We needed to get our study published pronto, but since it was such bad science, we needed to skip peer review altogether. Conveniently, there are lists of fake journal publishers. And later: > The new publisher’s CEO, Carlos Vasquez, emailed Johannes to let him know that we had produced an “outstanding manuscript,” and that for just 600 Euros it “could be accepted directly in our premier journal.” This is really more about science journalism than about science. These kinds of journals are difficult for a lay person to tell apart from actual, scientific journals, but distinguishing between the two is exactly the kind of job a competent science journalist would do. Inept science journalists, on the other hand, give these fake journals a reason to exist by citing them unchallenged.
- chrischen 11y ago
  And his experiment reveals that the Internet gets its nutrition science from inept science journalists. Think of all the arguments won by people searching google and having this show up. I once won an argument by changing Wikipedia during the argument and showing it to him on his computer.

notimetorelax 11y ago

If anything I applaud John's work, this is a great social experiment.

mcguire 11y ago

And this attitude is one of the bigger reasons he was able to do it.