Health

cyclonefence

(4,911 posts)

1. I was involved in medical publishing for most of my professional life

Sun Oct 15, 2023, 10:46 AM

Oct 2023

and I have never heard of the journal (PLOS one) which published these results. From what I can find out, articles it accepts are peer-reviewed (which is good) but authors pay for publication (which is very, very, very bad).

I would not give any credence at all to these results unless the study is picked up by a major, main-line, no-payment-to-publish medical journal like JAMA or the Lancet or NEJM.

The information reported is very important, and a major medical journal would be happy (to say the least) to publish them. The information reported is also important enough to attract attention in the main-line press as well, and all I hear is crickets.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Common Plastic Additive Linked to Autism And ADHD, Scientists Discover (ScienceAlert) [View all] eppur_se_muova Oct 2023 OP

I was involved in medical publishing for most of my professional life cyclonefence Oct 2023 #1

PLOS One has been around for many years and is respected, AFAIK erronis Oct 2023 #2

TY! appalachiablue Oct 2023 #3

...and of course...there's "Retraction Watch." NNadir Oct 2023 #5

Wow. Interesting site/link --- retraction watch. Hadn't KPN Oct 2023 #7

I do agree with keeping a certain level of skepticism. Just added RetractionWatch.org erronis Oct 2023 #8

Thanks for the link Farmer-Rick Oct 2023 #11

I found mixed reviews of PLOS One. progressoid Oct 2023 #6

I wouldn't characterize Elsevier as a "not for profit" enterprise. NNadir Oct 2023 #9

Your experience differs from mine cyclonefence Oct 2023 #12

Interesting Kick! burrowowl Oct 2023 #4

As long as it's not blaming vaccines, that's positive! Ziggysmom Oct 2023 #10