Even a community of competent scientists all acting in good faith can generate a misleading scholarly record when — as is the case in the current publishing environment — journals prefer to publish positive results over negative ones. In a provocative and hugely influential 2005 paper, epidemiologist John Ioannides went so far as to argue that this publication biashas created a situation in which most published scientific results are probably false. As a result, it’s not clear that one can safely rely on the results of some random study reported in the scientific literature, let alone on Buzzfeed. Once corporate funders with private agendas become involved, matters become all the more complicated.
- John Ioannidis (2005) Why most published scientific results are false. PLOS Medicine 2:e124.
- David Michaels and Celeste Monforton (2005) Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment. American Journal of Public Health 95:S39-S48
Supplementary Reading
- Erick Turner et al. (2008) Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy New England Journal of Medicine358:252-260
- Silas Nissen et al. (2016) Publication bias and the canonization of false facts. eLife 5:e21451
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario