SAM URETSKY

It’s a matter of trust – which has to be earned. After all, The Weekly World News has on its masthead “The World’s Only Reliable News.” For those who remember, WWN, when it was in print, had a paid circulation of over one million, and gave advice on how to kill a vampire and how to sell your soul to the devil.

British Medical Journal (May 29) reported, “RFK Jr threatens to stop US scientists from publishing in major medical journals” Politico (5/27) explained, “The health secretary said the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet are in bed with pharma … Speaking on the “Ultimate Human” podcast, Kennedy said the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet, three of the most influential medical journals in the world, were “corrupt” and publish studies funded and approved by pharmaceutical companies.”

Kennedy is not completely wrong. Even the best medical journals have their failings. For example, some studies really are funded by pharmaceutical companies, and only want to publish studies that show their products in a good light. This is generally called “publication bias,” so the sponsors and researchers only want to submit studies that show that the product made a difference, a statistically significant difference. Studies that reflect poorly on the sponsor’s product, or show no difference at all, may wind up in the file cabinet. This is probably the most common failing of the most prestigious journals — they want to publish reports that a treatment made was better than the drug in common use, which can improve the sales of the sponsor’s product.

Probably more common are errors in the statistical analysis of medical journals, or any other academic discipline. Physicians and surgeons know medical practice, but don’t always use the right way to interpret the results. There was a study “Common mistakes in biostatistics” in the Clinical Kidney Journal (July 2024) that identifies a number of math errors in published papers, but many of the best journals now employ statisticians to review studies for errors in the statistical analysis before they are accepted for publication. This may include having a large enough sample to reach a valid conclusion, or an adequate control group. The New England Journal of Medicine published its new guidelines for statistical analysis in 2019. The journals that Kennedy wants to ban are the most rigorous in getting things right and were not corrupt.

On the other hand, medicine, and other professions, are faced with the challenge of predatory journals. The concept “publish or perish” applies to all scientific subjects, from AANA Journal (American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology) to Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. At the same time, the number of “open access” journals have grown with the access to the internet. Traditional journals require payment for access, either hard copy or, or online. Open access journals are available for anyone with an internet connection. This has given rise to “predatory journals”, which do not perform the review process that is done by legitimate journals, but charge the author for the service. The result is that without proper review, poorly researched “studies” are more likely to be published and spread disinformation.

While some open access journals are honest, or at least honestly intended, predatory journals are not checked for facts and statistical analysis, let alone grammar and spelling. There is no authoritative list of predatory journals, but Beall’s List (beallslist.net), will give an idea of how many predatory journals there are. This list was created by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado Denver in 2010, and by 2011 it had 18 journals or publishers listed. According to an AI list (Gemini) by 2016, it had grown to 923 publications. The list is no longer being maintained but it will give an idea of the extent of the problem. By making a rule that researchers who receive federal funding may not publish in the most rigorous journals, Kennedy is directing them to questionable journals, and risking misinformation to spread.

Canadian Family Physician (February 2019; 65(2):92–94.) published a report, “Predatory journals, Authors and Readers Beware.” In part, it explains, “… It is estimated that by 2015 there were as many as 10,000 predatory journals worldwide. Some have similar names to established, respected journals and sometimes falsely claim to have well-known experts on their editorial boards. Their websites are sometimes unprofessional, with grammatical and spelling mistakes, and the addresses for some are simply post office box numbers. They have high acceptance rates of submitted articles and quick publication times owing to little peer-review scrutiny. There is often no mention of author fees until after an article is accepted.”

If Secretary Kennedy has his way, there will be a lot more profits for the predatory publishers and less accuracy in the published research.

Sam Uretsky is a writer and pharmacist living in Louisville, Ky. Email sam.uretsky@gmail.com