Tag: Peer Review
The opposite of “transparency”: Sneaking Lysenkoism into NIH peer review
On Friday, the NIH released an RFI (request for Information) on a proposed new format for reporting the scores of grant applications determined by study sections. If implemented, this new system will make it easier to hide political manipulation of grant funding.
Lysenkoism 2.0 in action: Dismantling peer review at NIH
A recent report in Nature describes how the Trump administration is weakening peer review in favor of ideology-based grant approval at NIH. Lysenkoism 2.0 is in full swing and getting worse.
Lysenkoism 2.0 continues: Podcast Jay wants to turn NIH into the “research arm” of MAHA
NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has recently said that he wants to transform the NIH into the "research arm of MAHA" and a "central driver of the MAHA agenda." Lysenkoism 2.0 continues apace at NIH.
Are NIH study sections a waste of time?
Since the nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for NIH Director, I've been seeing a suggestion from certain contrarian doctors for a "randomized trial" of study sections vs. a "modified lottery" to determine which grant applications are funded by the NIH. Just what the heck is Dr. Vinay Prasad talking about?
Improving how the NIH decides which grants to fund: Reality vs. conspiracy
Last week, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a plan to decrease the problem of reputational bias in grant funding. I couldn't help but contrast how hard the NIH tries to use the most rigorous scientific criteria to decide whose grants to fund with the conspiracy theory that Anthony Fauci personally doles out NIH dollars like a mob boss...
Peer review fail: Vaccine publishes antivax propaganda disguised as “reanalyses” of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data
In order portray COVID-19 vaccines as dangerous, Peter Doshi has now managed to get poorly designed and performed "reanalyses" of the clinical trial data used by the FDA to grant emergency use approval of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines published in two reputable journals, The BMJ and Vaccine? What happened?
Nepotistic Journals
Research identifies another potential bias in scientific publishing - nepotistic journals.
Update on ASEA, Protandim, and dōTERRA
Multilevel marketing distributors of dietary supplements and essential oils point to studies that they think constitute evidence that their products work. They don't understand why those studies are inadequate.
Is scientific peer review a “sacred cow” ready to be slaughtered?
I’ve frequently noted that one of the things most detested by quacks and promoters of pseudoscience is peer review. Creationists hate peer review. HIV/AIDS denialists hate it. Anti-vaccine cranks like those at Age of Autism hate it. Indeed, as a friend of mine, Mark Hoofnagle, pointed out several years ago, pseudoscientists and cranks of all stripes hate it. There’s a reason for...
Faking Peer-Review
A major cancer journal just retracted 107 papers for faking peer-review, bringing the total for that publisher to 450. How did this happen, and how do we prevent it in the future?