pull down to refresh

Science Magazine Attacks the Journal of the Academy of Public Healthbrownstone.org/articles/science-magazine-attacks-the-journal-of-the-academy-of-public-health/
150 sats \ 6 comments \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 26 Mar science
Only two days after the Journal of the Academy of Public Health‘s official launch, Science Magazine criticised it in a news item. A scientist I had recommended as a member of our Academy wrote to me that the fact that Science feared our new journal suggested that we were on the right track.
Indeed. Science scored an own goal by illustrating so clearly what is wrong with the legacy media and traditional scientific journals. It started out with denigrating remarks about the journal being the brainchild of President Donald Trump’s pick to direct the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Jay Bhattacharya, and Martin Kulldorff “who became known for his opposition to lockdowns, child vaccination, and other public health measures during the Covid-19 pandemic. Its editorial board also includes Trump’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration, Johns Hopkins University surgeon Marty [wrongly spelled as Martin] Makary, who also opposed vaccine mandates.”
Why did Science mention that Trump picked Jay and Marty? This is irrelevant for any scientific judgments about these people. And what was wrong with their positions during the pandemic? Nothing.
Sweden did not lock down and yet had one of the lowest mortalities in the world. To vaccinate children against Covid-19 down to 6 months of age as in the US is highly likely harmful, and we have not recommended this in Europe. Many people, me included, have argued against vaccine mandates and it was never a requirement in Denmark to become vaccinated against Covid-19. Such mandates are ethically and scientifically indefensible and can increase vaccine hesitancy for vaccines in general.
Science’s denigration continued: “The journal, which has already published eight articles on topics including COVID-19 vaccine trials and mask mandates, eschews several aspects of traditional publishing. It lacks a subscription paywall.”
Yes, The ScienceTM strikes again. These ”scientists” don’t seem to understand how science works, but they seem to understand how politics and peer-reviewed journals work. The Science Magazine people look to be protecting their political stance on the COVID situation rather than looking at what the people in other journals are saying about their research. Or, perhaps, they are trying to protect their turf in a turf war over science publications. Either way, this is such a poor optic that one can’t help but wonder what Science Magazine thinks science really is without full freedom to publish results as they stand. If I were a subscriber to Science Magazine, I would be on the phone cancelling my subscription post haste!
write
preview
related posts
386 sats \ 5 replies \ @south_korea_ln 27 Mar
The journal, which has already published eight articles on topics including COVID-19 vaccine trials and mask mandates, eschews several aspects of traditional publishing. It lacks a subscription paywall.
I went to check the original article in Science.
The journal, which has already published eight articles on topics including COVID-19 vaccine trials and mask mandates, eschews several aspects of traditional publishing. It lacks a subscription paywall, posts peer reviews alongside published articles, and pays reviewers for their work. But other researchers have criticized the journal’s exclusivity and lack of quality control. Only members of a newly formed body, the Academy of Public Health, can submit articles, and all submitted articles are published. Skeptics worry the publication will be used to sow doubt about scientific consensus on matters such as vaccine efficacy and safety.
(emphasis mine)
My reading of the statement does not have a denigrating tone, quite the opposite, unlike what the writer in Brownstone tries to imply. The use of "eschews" implies that paywalls, not posting peer reviews and paying peer reviewers are outdated practices. The writer in Science implies that this is a positive thing to eschew. The negative things the writer highlights, by the use of the word but, are the exclusive access to submit articles to the journal and the lack of quality control. Not the lack of paywall.
It's a pity. What could have been a good critique of the flaws in the original Science article becomes much weaker when a quick check of the original article shows that the Brownstone writer cherry-picked his quotes to further his personal agenda.
Same critique could probably be made on the author of the original Science article. Indeed, it seems, from the quoted paragraph above, that the writer is reporting on what other researchers have said. Without giving a source for who these "other researchers are". By doing so, he also furthers his personal agenda and caters to what the average reader of Science expects.
If only people on both sides could adhere to proper principles of communication, acknowledging reason and good intention on both sides, we'd go much further on this topic. I understand that traditional media has done much damage in the past, hence pushing people on the other side to use similar tactics,...
Yes, The ScienceTM strikes again. These ”scientists” don’t seem to understand how science works
By seeing Science as a monolith, one does not help the narrative. So many scientists are actively trying to change the system, acknowledging the deep flaws, etc. Many journals, even traditional ones, are moving towards a more open peer review system (I often get offered the choice to decide if I want my peer review to be published along the article). Some journals may do it out of response to a more general movement, but still, they are doing it. Also because many of the members forming those journals share the same views you do.
Ok, rant over. I was initially gonna just thank you for sharing this interesting article. I think the Brownstone did it with good intention, and it is good to keep highlighting the flaws in traditional journals. But I wish he'd have done without such blatant narrative building.
reply
138 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 27 Mar
Thanks for the well reasoned reply. I did not go to the extent of looking to the original article in Science Magazine. You are right, everyone seems to be writing only to get their own viewpoint in front of people and not to give both sides a clear and fair hearing.
By the way, The ScienceTM is a sarcastic criticism of those, like Fauci that claim that they and only they do science in the correct manner. It is not meat to criticize science in general because most scientists do not do The ScienceTM but they do do science, if you get my drift.
I also have a bone to pick over the way traditional journals do business. They seem to be organized to only publish the current paradigm of whatever subject matter they cover. There is no place for new ideas in a strictly peer reviewed system, and that is the reason it is set up in that way. I guess that is why is is said that the changing of the paradigm only comes after all of the old paradigm professors die off.
reply
30 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln 27 Mar
In the end, we think quite alike. People on both sides are not that different. Not good of me to think in terms of sides when i think of it.
Ok, thanks for clarifying the ScienceTM thing. I did not catch that sarcastic nuance.
Yeah, change usually happens with a next generation taking over. Few people are capable of change themselves. Not only in the context of science.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 27 Mar
Everyone has too many sunk investments in whatever theory that they are pursuing and professing. That one fact, alone, makes it very difficult to change course and thought patterns. Giving up on sunk costs is one of the most difficult things to do for most people, especially if you have put in years and years sinking those costs. The investments were too great to just walk away from when presented with another idea.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 27 Mar
Very true. Sunk cost is incredibly strong.
Better to share a meal with the person one disagrees with: #925986
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 27 Mar
Often the sunk costs are so overwhelming that even having many meals together and being close friends will not overcome the past investments in reputation and knowledge. It is a difficult process.
reply on another page