-2
$\begingroup$

The BMJ published the Wakefield study, criticised it, and retracted it. They then argued that the Wakefield results they published were fradulent. Is BMJ reliable for biology studies or is it an anti vaccine conspiracy journal?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

First: The infamous study by Wakefield et al., was published 1998 in Lancet, see here. Wakefield had indeed falsified his study, by selecting kids with certain preconditions, taking money from attorneys (and not disclosing it) and others. Here is a nice overview over it.

To your question: The British Journal of Medicine (BMJ) is indeed a reliable and credible source for scientific articles, as is Lancet. Journals can check the content they get for publication to some extend, but if they have authors which deliberately falsify studies, then they can do little. The thing which can be criticized in the Wakefield case is the time that it took to withdraw this publication.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bobb so what's your point? I could write a paper with completely falsified data, add some collaborators who generated their own and described it truthfully enough, write a convincing but incorrect conclusion, and get it published in a mid to top tier journal. If someone is smart enough, they can get around the current checks in the system unless an incredibly thorough review is done and the results are essentially independently generated again, which almost never happens before publication. There is, and always will be some level of trust in the system, otherwise nothing would get published. $\endgroup$ – MattDMo Sep 22 '16 at 20:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bobb Exactly as MattDMo says. There are pther cases, like the one of Olivier Voinnet who recently had to retract 7(!) papers and correct at least 15 (I lost track here) and return prestigious prices. This guy was once a star, but has now fallen. See ]here. $\endgroup$ – Chris Sep 22 '16 at 20:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Bobb tell me, are you a scientist? Do you actually understand what the peer review process is? Have you ever submitted a paper for publication to a halfway decent journal? If not, you very likely don't know what you're talking about. No one who actually knows what the process is and/or has been through it would say it's "almost useless." And if it is useless, what's your better alternative? I'm sure you've thought that through very carefully... $\endgroup$ – MattDMo Sep 22 '16 at 23:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bobb if you're just here to troll, you will very quickly find yourself banned from the site, and potentially all Stack Exchange sites. If you want to engage in a thoughtful conversation about the pros and cons of the current system and how it can be fixed, fine. If you're just going to make asinine comments displaying your obvious ignorance about the subject, you may as well just leave now. $\endgroup$ – MattDMo Sep 22 '16 at 23:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bobb peer review is good at identifying scientific quality but less so at detecting deliberate fraud. This is fairly well understood within the community (elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/peer-review/…) and is one motivation for the Reproducibility Initiative (see also academia.stackexchange.com/questions/74761/…). $\endgroup$ – arboviral Sep 23 '16 at 11:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.