Long article on scientific publishing in The Guardian

[ladycatlover]

Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
It is an industry like no other, with profit margins to rival Google – and it was created by one of Britain’s most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell. By Stephen Buranyi

https://www.theguardian.com/science...usiness-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

Hope I've put this in the right forum!

I thought people here might be interested in this. I never knew Robert Maxwell was so involved in scientific publishing.

 

[Sean]

Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

Yes.

 

[Kalliope]

Saw this recently on twitter

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877804020345262080

 

[ladycatlover]

Not sure this is the place to share this, but here goes anyway!

'Exaggerations' threaten public trust in science, says leading statistician
David Spiegelhalter, president of Royal Statistical Society, says sloppy attitude to statistics leads to misleading claims and draws parallels to rise of fake news

A sloppy attitude towards statistics has led to exaggerated and unjustified claims becoming commonplace in science, according to one of Britain’s most eminent statisticians.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ence-leading-statistician-david-spiegelhalter

 

[Sean]

I wonder if he knows about PACE, and if that is one of the examples he has in mind.

It's a nice thought.

 

[Demepivo]

@ladycatlover 2 good spots. Thank you

 

[Demepivo]

Hannah Devlin is the Science Editor of the Guardian if anybody wants to bring up PACE & GETSET as examples of bad science & the publishing jungle

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880383202359214080

 

[Demepivo]

Might also be worth contacting Stephen Buranyi who the piece on the publishing racket

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879637439995940864

 

[TiredSam]

Not sure this is the place to share this, but here goes anyway!

'Exaggerations' threaten public trust in science, says leading statistician
David Spiegelhalter, president of Royal Statistical Society, says sloppy attitude to statistics leads to misleading claims and draws parallels to rise of fake news

A sloppy attitude towards statistics has led to exaggerated and unjustified claims becoming commonplace in science, according to one of Britain’s most eminent statisticians.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ence-leading-statistician-david-spiegelhalter

As president of the Royal Statistical Society David Spiegelhalter should be leading criticism of the national embarassment under his nose that is the PACE trial in the UK, instead of leaving it to David Tuller in the US.

Unfortunately Spiegelhalter works with the Science Media Centre and has spoken up against the harassment of his pal Simon Wessely by borderline psychopathic ME activists. So he's just another Benjamin Goldacre as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Demepivo]

@TiredSam thanks for that important detail

Might bring it back up on Twitter

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880311210545172480

 

[TiredSam]

Unfortunately I can't remember exactly what it was a bunch of Wessely's pals put their names to recently (last year or so?) standing fast with him in the battle against terrorism sorry FOI requests, but I do remember being disappointed to see David Spiegelhalter's name on the list. Anyone remember what it was?

Here is Malcolm Hooper on the SMC and Royal Statistical Society:

It has close links with The Royal Statistical Society, whose members provide a “Before the headlines” service for it
(http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...lists/headlines-for-journalists/volunteers/);
given that the majority of UK medical statisticians are bound by their institutions’ mandatory allegiance to NICE,
an effective circle of closed ranks exists when misleading statistics are challenged, as individual statisticians are
fearful of speaking out, and some have admitted this to be so.

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-SMC-and-its-campaign-against-MECFS.pdf

 

[Manganus]

I wonder if he knows about PACE, and if that is one of the examples he has in mind.

Let's assume that he doesn't!

I'm convinced there are a lot more of misconduct in science than usually understood. (I also fear the misconduct is increasing.) The "star scientist" dr Macchiarini fooled quite a few of my highly educated friends and acquaintances. But for some reason, fraud is not a big theme for journalists. He was more visible in the press as a hero than as a criminal.

 

[Demepivo]

There is third article in this Guardian mini-series about bad science (via James Coyne tweet)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880922420525371393