Re:Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
by mattkrause on Wednesday April 28, 2021 @11:38PM
(#26977171)
On top of that, peer review is more advisory than adversarial: it’s meant to catch honest mistakes and point out possible interpretations that the authors might have missed.
Catching out-and-out fraud, a la Wakefield, is way beyond the reviewers’ remit.
Every journal in the world is like this. Why you're raising questions about Lancet when all scientific journals operate the same way? There is no such thing as American science or Russian science, it is all the same.
Re:Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
by mattkrause on Thursday April 29, 2021 @01:15AM
(#26977704)
I agree! I was just trying to say that it's unfair to tar them with Wakefield's nonsense.
Re:Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
by kspacewalk2 on Wednesday April 28, 2021 @09:47PM
(#26976549)
It's a respected journal, but lately it's been publishing research that is of questionable quality for its "top-tier" reputation.
Of all the nonsense I've read over the years on HN this pretty much takes the cake.
> has a history of controversies
No, over the many decades (190+ years) it has been in publication there have been a (low) number of problematic papers that passed its review, and for each and every one of those there is a very well documented history and in most cases a retraction.
Like every other classifier journals have 'false negatives' and 'false positives', papers that should have passed their review but did not and papers that should not have passed but did. It's inevitable.