Why Pseudoscience Continues to Be Published in Journals
Written on
The Persistence of Pseudoscience in Academic Publishing
In December 2014, the publisher Scientific Research issued a retraction for an article in its journal Health, titled "Basic Principles Underlying Human Physiology." The retraction claimed that the paper needed additional research and study. However, a glance at the now-retracted piece shows it aimed to propagate the thoroughly debunked idea that HIV does not cause AIDS. It stated, "HIV is not etiologically involved in AIDS... Actually, heart failure represents the causal factor of AIDS and many other 'primary' immune deficiencies."
This example highlights a critical issue in scientific literature: opinion pieces that merely reflect an individual's viewpoint without empirical testing are fundamentally unscientific. The retraction notice amusingly concluded with the assertion that "Health strives to promote the circulation of scientific research," which is ironic given that the article in question was a prime example of pseudoscience.
The definition of pseudoscience suggests it should not appear in scientific publications. Theoretically, the peer-review process and editorial scrutiny should prevent this. In practice, however, the reality can be quite different. Peer review can be lenient, allowing significant methodological flaws and misconduct to slip through. Researchers can also manipulate lax editorial practices to introduce pseudoscientific claims into the literature.
Predatory publishers, a term coined by Jeffrey Beall, are notorious for masquerading as legitimate scientific publishers while primarily seeking to profit from researchers' fees. These journals often accept nearly any submission after a minimal peer review. The publisher Frontiers, noted for its open-access model, has faced criticism for publishing problematic articles. For instance, a 2014 paper by Patricia Goodson questioned the well-established HIV-AIDS link, drawing backlash from the scientific community. Although Frontiers altered the article's classification to that of an opinion piece, this merely underscored the journal's struggle with maintaining scientific integrity.
The first video titled "Science Isn't Dogma, You're Just Stupid (Response to Formscapes)" discusses the importance of critical thinking in science and the dangers of accepting pseudoscientific claims without scrutiny.
The issue of pseudoscience is not limited to predatory journals; even reputable publishers have fallen prey. In 2014, Springer and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers retracted over 120 articles generated by a computer program called SCIgen, which produced nonsensical papers that mimicked legitimate scientific work. This highlights a significant lapse in the peer-review process, as these papers were evidently not vetted.
Section 1.1: The Role of Peer Review
While one might expect journals to be vigilant against false claims, this is not always the case. For example, in 2011, Elsevier’s Applied Mathematics Letters retracted a paper questioning the second law of thermodynamics. The editor attributed its publication to a lapse in judgment, acknowledging that the article did not belong in a mathematics journal.
Subsection 1.1.1: The Consequences of Legal Action
Despite the retraction, the author, Granville Sewell, filed a lawsuit against Elsevier. The publisher not only covered his legal fees but also issued an apology, allowing Sewell to claim that the paper was not retracted due to its inaccuracies. This incident illustrates how some individuals engaged in pseudoscience seek validation through publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Section 1.2: Vigilance Required
The responsibility lies with the scientific community—peer reviewers, journal editors, and publishers—to remain alert to the influx of pseudoscience. The online availability of scholarly work makes it easier for flawed papers to gain attention, and the need for vigilance has never been more critical.
Chapter 2: The Crisis of Scientific Integrity
The second video, "YouTube's Science Scam Crisis," delves into how misinformation spreads in the age of digital media, exacerbating the issues surrounding pseudoscience in academic publishing.