Championing Ethics and Objectivity in Biomedical Research

A Critical Evaluation of 'Study Laundering: IPAK, Antivax Scientists, and the Return of Living Dead Antivax Studies' reveals likely bias, deceit high likelihood of intentional libelous defamation.

In an era where science and biomedical research hold immense sway over our lives, upholding the pillars of objectivity, transparency, and ethical conduct in scientific publishing is paramount. As a scientist with a long and distinguished career in biomedical research and extensive editorial experience, including key roles in esteemed journals, I have been a tireless advocate for these principles since 1999. My name is James Lyons-Weiler, I am Editor-in-Chief of the open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal, Science, Public Health Policy & the Law, and I have dedicated my professional life to ensuring that the world of science remains a beacon of integrity and trustworthiness for society. Admittedly, that goal has not proven easy in an era of profit-driven biases influencing so much of the scientific literature.

Recent events brought to my attention by a colleague that requires significant attention among both professionals and the general public. This article, titled Study Laundering: IPAK, Antivax Scientists, and the Return of Living Dead Antivax Studies, requires but a minute of our scrutiny. In this analysis, I address potential bias, unethical practices, potential libel, the role of peer review, scientific integrity, and factual accuracy within the article.

As someone deeply committed to the cause of objectivity, I believe it is essential to not ignore this article and provide comprehensive analysis. Our goal is to illuminate the challenges facing scientific publishing today, while highlighting the need for unwavering dedication to ethical responsibility, objectivity, and the highest standards of integrity.

Examination of Bias: Unveiling the Layers

Bias, a subtle and potent force in scientific discourse, can significantly affect the credibility and objectivity of any publication. The lenses through which data is presented, the tone employed, and the selection of evidence all play pivotal roles in revealing potential bias. Our mission is to examine the article with a discerning eye to assess whether it carries the weight of bias.

In our quest to unearth any signs of bias, we need to scrutinize the article's language and tone meticulously. Do they betray a tilt toward a particular perspective? Does the framing of arguments exhibit a lack of impartiality? By dissecting the narrative, we can identify potential areas where bias may have taken root.

Bias Analysis

The article exhibits several indicators of bias. The language, tone, and framing of arguments all point toward a lack of impartiality:

Selection of Evidence: The article concentrates on criticizing the practice of "study laundering" and specifically targets the journal SciPubHealthLaw and a study by Mark Skidmore. The absence of counterarguments or evidence that might support the practices of SciPubHealthLaw or the validity of the study suggests a bias toward discrediting the journal, its editorial board, and the papers and editorials it has published.

Framing of Arguments: The article employs terms like "laundering," "bottom-feeding predatory open access journal," and "dubious" to describe SciPubHealthLaw and the practice of republishing retracted studies. Such language frames the journal and its practices negatively, indicating bias.

Questioning Qualifications: The article challenges the qualifications and objectivity of the editorial board of SciPubHealthLaw. While questioning qualifications can be a valid point in scientific discourse, the lack of specific evidence to substantiate this claim indicates bias.

Alleged Pay-to-Publish Model: The article implies that SciPubHealthLaw operates on a "pay-to-publish" model, suggesting a lack of rigor and ethical oversight. However, it doesn't provide concrete evidence to back this claim, which could be seen as a biased assertion. (In fact, the journal is Open Access, and while we request a very modest production fee, it is often forgiven. It is hardly a predatory amount, far, far less than most other open access journals. The journal has been a cost center that has run in the red since it started. We see it as a worthy investment in the future of Science.

General Tone: The overall tone of the article is intentionally hypercritical and dismissive. It is an attack, not an analysis. This tone discourages a balanced and objective evaluation of the facts, serving as another form of bias. If intentional, its author should rest assured it will backfire.

Lack of Counterpoints: The article does not include responses from parties it criticizes, nor does it seem to consider alternative viewpoints or justifications for the practices it critiques. This absence of balance could indicates bias.

Ethical and Peer-Review Practices: The article critiques the ethical oversight and peer-review process of SciPubHealthLaw without being specific about the peer review processes in place. The author is apparently not aware of the ethical checks and balances in play in the operation of the journal. The article also does not offer a comparative analysis with other journals or industry standards. This could be seen as a biased approach.

As a staunch advocate for objectivity in science, I firmly believe that unbiased presentation of viewpoints in reporting and balanced view on complex matters in discourse the impact medical practice and public health is the bedrock upon which scientific discoveries should rest. My career has been defined by a commitment to data-driven, evidence-based research, and a dedication to ethical and transparent reporting. I have seen firsthand how objectivity ensures that scientific discourse remains credible and valuable to both experts and the wider public.

By addressing bias, we can reinforce the significance of impartiality and objectivity in scientific discourse, and to shed light on its impact on the broader scientific community and society.

Unethical Practices: Nurturing Ethical Responsibility

In the intricate tapestry of scientific publishing, ethics stand as the linchpin that upholds the integrity of research and reporting. Ethical principles, such as transparency and honesty, are not just ideals but the very essence of responsible scientific communication. Let’s see if the article includes actions or claims that may cast a shadow on these critical principles.

Transparency, a cornerstone of public trust in science, is of paramount importance. Any deviation from this standard has the potential to erode confidence in scientific findings and compromise the scientific method itself.

Throughout my career, which has included serving in numerous significant editorial roles, and I have witnessed firsthand the profound impact of ethical responsibility in research and reporting. Ethical behavior is not merely a theoretical concept but a tangible and non-negotiable aspect of our scientific endeavors.

My commitment to these principles, exemplified by my contributions to the review of studies and papers in many, many esteemed journals including Cancer Research, is unwavering. We seek to illuminate the importance of ethical responsibility not only for the scientific community but also for the broader society. By putting wrongfully retracted studies through the second ringer of independent review - double jeopardy, in fact, we are nurturing and protecting the ethical heart of science. The authors of all articles submitted to our journal are informed that publication depends on passing with favorable reviews.

Is Gorski Guilty of Libel? A Matter of Ethical Consequence

Allegations of libel and slander within the realm of scientific discourse are not to be taken lightly, as they carry the potential to inflict significant harm, both personally and professionally. It is my duty to scrutinize the article, Study Laundering: IPAK, Antivax Scientists, and the Return of Living Dead Antivax Studies, to assess whether it contains any defaming statements or character attacks on the Editorial Board that may tarnish the ethical integrity of the scientific discourse.

Libel, by its very nature, involves making false and damaging statements about individuals or groups. It is a breach of ethical standards that undermines the trust and respect upon which the scientific community thrives. Therefore, any allegations of libel against an Editorial Board or its members demand our unwavering attention and scrutiny.

Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper. To be considered libel, a statement must be published, false, and harm the victim’s reputation.

The language, the lack of counterpoints, the use of false, harmful claims, the general tone and the lack of evidence presented to back the claims show that the author has a reckless disregard for the truth.

Here are the false statements made by the article that can harm reputations:

Description of SciPubHealthLaw as a "bottom-feeding predatory open access journal": This is a strong claim that is patently false. We have published cutting edge research articles that have helped keep public health on the track of objective, evidence-based policies. The term "predatory" has specific implications about the journal's peer-review process and ethical standards that are untrue.

Claim that SciPubHealthLaw "launders" retracted studies: The term "laundering" implies intentional deceit and implies doing something for net financial gain. Our goals and intention are clear: to bring objective knowledge forward via the tried-and-true practices of peer-reviewed scientific publishing. Period.

Questioning the Qualifications of the Editorial Board: The article, with statements that can only be described as deranged attacks on professionals conducting a community service, suggests that the editorial board is unqualified and biased. This is a claim that could be considered libelous because it leads the reader to believe the board is unqualified. That’s pretty simple. The Board is qualified.

Alleged Pay-to-Publish Model: The article implies that SciPubHealthLaw operates on a "pay-to-publish" model, suggesting a lack of rigor and ethical oversight. This is patently false. SciPubHealthLaw is, like many other journals, an open access journal and we adhere to the strictures of peer review-based publication.

Criticism of Mark Skidmore's Study: These have been addressed by prior articles.

Claim that SciPubHealthLaw lacks rigorous review practices and policies: This is a direct statement about the journal's quality based on speculation.

These statements were published with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Given these observations, there are elements in the article that could likely be considered libelous, particularly if the statements made are proven to be false and damaging to the reputation of SciPubHealthLaw, its Editorial Board, and its Editor-in-Chief.

However, a thorough legal evaluation would be necessary to make a definitive judgment.

As an advocate for rigorous peer review practices, ethical standards, and objectivity in science publishing, I understand the gravity of such attacks. Such claims not only breach ethical guidelines and the law but also compromise the credibility of the entire scientific community. They erode public trust and hinder the progress of biomedical research.

In contrast to Gorski’s blog article, where clearly anything can be published without regard for its veracity or usefulness to society, it is crucial that claims made within scientific articles are substantiated by robust evidence and adhere to ethical principles.

Our commitment to objectivity and ethical responsibility in scientific publishing must remain unwavering, for it is through these principles that we uphold the true spirit of science and its potential to benefit humanity.

Peer Review and Credibility: Pillars of Trust

The credibility of scientific publishing hinges upon the rigorous process of peer review, a cornerstone of trust and integrity. Scientific articles undergo meticulous evaluation by experts in the field before being deemed fit for publication. This peer review process plays an essential role in upholding the credibility and reliability of our scientific discourse.

Throughout my career, I have had the privilege of contributing to the scientific community in various editorial roles, including serving as Associated Editor-in-Chief for Applied Bioinformatics, Founding Editor-in-Chief for Cancer Informatics (I personally recruited its editorial board in the mid-2000’s), Founding Editor-in-Chief for Science, Public Health Policy & the Law, and as an Editorial Board Member for Cancer Research, among others for many years. These roles have granted me insights into the vital role that peer review plays in maintaining the credibility of scientific publications. I have championed the principles of scientific integrity.

Scientific articles that undergo rigorous peer review are more likely to be reliable sources of information. They are subjected to critical scrutiny by experts who evaluate the methodology, analysis, and conclusions, ensuring that they meet the high standards of quality and objectivity demanded by the scientific community.

In evaluating the article under scrutiny, Study Laundering: IPAK, Antivax Scientists, and the Return of Living Dead Antivax Studies, we should consider whether it has undergone this essential peer review process. The absence of robust peer review can raise concerns about the credibility and reliability of the content.

As far as everyone I’ve asked knows, Gorski’s blog is a mere opinion blog article not subject to any form of peer review.

Beyond that, a full assessment of the article for its adherence to scientific integrity, factual accuracy, and ethical standards is in order. Speaking on behalf of the journal, our collective commitment to peer review and transparency remains steadfast, as it is through these practices that we earn and maintain the trust and respect of both the scientific community and the wider society in science as a way of knowing.

Peer review, along with our shared dedication to ethical responsibility, serves as the bedrock upon which the credibility and trustworthiness of scientific publishing rest. Together, we fortify these pillars of trust and uphold the principles that are central to our scientific endeavors.

Scientific Integrity and Factual Accuracy: The Essence of Trust

Scientific integrity is the very essence of our noble pursuit of knowledge. It is the unwavering commitment to truth, accuracy, and ethical conduct that defines our profession. Upholding this integrity is not just a choice but a solemn responsibility that transcends individual interests and beliefs.

Scientific articles, as conduits of knowledge, must be bound by the highest standards of accuracy and honesty. Information presented should be based on rigorous research methods, supported by credible evidence, and devoid of distortion or misrepresentation. Deviations from these principles not only compromise the reliability of scientific publications but also undermine the very fabric of trust upon which our discipline is built.

In assessing the article Study Laundering: IPAK, Antivax Scientists, and the Return of Living Dead Antivax Studies, our focus is on whether it adheres to these principles of scientific integrity and factual accuracy. Misrepresentation or inaccuracies in scientific reporting can have severe consequences, leading to the propagation of false or misleading information.

The article raises ethical concerns about the actions of its author, and reinforces the imperative of ethical and factual accuracy in scientific publishing. Our shared commitment to these principles ensures that the fruits of our scientific endeavors are rooted in trust and credibility, benefiting both the scientific community and society at large.

In a world where information is cherished as a beacon of knowledge, it is our unwavering dedication to scientific integrity that shines brightest.

Conclusion: For the Love of Science and Ethical Responsibility

Our examination of the article Study Laundering: IPAK, Antivax Scientists, and the Return of Living Dead Antivax Studies has not only shed light on obvious bias, unethical practices, potential libel, the role of peer review, scientific integrity, and factual accuracy within the scientific discourse, but it has also underscored the magnitude of our responsibilities as stewards of knowledge.

The analysis of the article unveiled critical facets of our shared commitment to ethics, objectivity, and the relentless pursuit of understanding the world through science.

In a world where science wields profound influence over our lives, where the boundaries of what is possible are constantly expanding, our dedication to ethics and objectivity must remain unwavering. It is a commitment that transcends time, place, and individual aspirations. It is a commitment to comprehension and understanding that can hopefully serve toward the betterment of humanity.

A Call to Action: For Science, For Society

In conclusion, I extend a resounding call to all members of the scientific community, from authors and reviewers to editors and readers, to stand united in the cause of ethical responsibility and objectivity in science publishing against the perils of profit motive. Let us pledge ourselves anew to the rigorous process of peer review, to transparency, and to the highest standards of scientific integrity. Let us champion factual accuracy and fairness in the presentation of scientific findings.

By adhering to these principles, we not only honor the legacy of scientific inquiry but also earn the trust and respect of the wider society. Not in ourselves, but in science as a way of knowing. We have seen too many examples of fraudulent studies imperil the public’s trust in science, as well as weaken the confidence scientists can have in the peer reviewed literature.

Regardless, or perhaps because of these threats to science, we advance our understanding of the world, improve medical practices and public health policies, and contribute to the betterment of humanity with a less bias scientific literature.

In a world teeming with information, let us be the beacon of ethical responsibility and truth. We serve as the guardians of scientific integrity, unwavering in our dedication to the principles that make our endeavors meaningful, trustworthy - and useful.

Our commitment to promoting ethics and objectivity in science publishing remains steadfast. Together, we can foster a culture of trust, transparency, and responsible scientific discourse. Biasing the scientific literature will cause a distortion of reality in the boluses of publications studied by future scientists: we owe it to them to remain as objective and unbiased as possible.

May our shared commitment to ethics and objectivity in science publishing guide us toward a brighter and more informed future in spite of those who would seemingly seek to render the darkest of ages.

Sincerely,

James Lyons-Weiler

Science, Public Health Policy & the Law has important announcements coming in the forthcoming weeks and months. Please sign up at the website for updates.