Comments on: Is there such a thing as an objective science journal?

By: brainfan

brainfan — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:32:10 +0000

Dr. Andrew Wakefield has since been vindicated, but you won’t find Stiers making mention of that. This is because his organization, the ACSH is funded by the pharmaceutical industry. And if there IS such thing as an objective science journal, you won’t find the ACSH within a million miles of it.

By: Kian Mead

Kian Mead — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:25:02 +0000

Wow, such stupidity.

You do realise, that science journals publish studies which discuss tests and results which have never been researched before. So to adjudicate them, can only be based on the scientific method employed, NOT the results.

If a scientist (who conducted the study for plaintiffs in a legal case) is dishonest in the scientific method, only other scientists can refute the claim, through replicating the tests, or studying the same data which the conclusion is based on.

Which is where the tobacco industry comes in. Whoever pays the piper plays the tune? Ever heard of that before? Since most climate deniers quote that maxim, why not for the tobacco industry?

But this is why most universities offer tenure – to enable scientists to disagree without financial pressure, unlike the private (tobacco) sector. Not that the system is perfect mind you.

By: The real value in the Wakefield autism study | ZDNet Healthcare | ZDNet.com

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:19:14 +0000

[...] The controversy grew so intense some observers began questioning whether scientific journals were objective at all. [...]

By: monkeybird

monkeybird — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:12:38 +0000

The pressure to publish in academia is intense. i.e. Publish or Perish. When working on my masters in 1988, the thought of publishing ‘bad data’ was unheard of. However, as time has past, ethics have gone by the way side.

Most reputable journals require peer review. How can junk science get published if it is truly peer reviewed.