Can you trust what you read in medical journals?
|May 5, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Peer review, News|
Not necessarily. From GENENG News
There appear to be systemic problems with the way that observational studies are commonly conducted. Virtually all of the problems listed in the Table can plague observational studies and, of course, any one alone or a combination of them could wreck a study. In light of multiple testing and multiple modeling, a p-value
It is popular to blame investigators for these problems, but the culpability must be shared by the managers of the scientific process: funding agencies and journal editors. At a minimum, funding agencies should require that datasets used in papers be deposited so that the normal scientific peer oversight can occur. Journal editors need to reexamine their policy of being satisfied with a p-value <0.05, unadjusted for multiple testing or multiple modeling. Editors are using “quality by inspection” (p-value <0.05) rather than the more modern “quality by design.”
See also: You mean, that cheeseburger WON’T be the death of us all?
Note: The reason we carry a lot of news on these topics is that, contrary to what science popularizers would have us believe, science is not a sure way to find out what’s really happening, unless it is pursued with exactly that intention.
The fact that a person popularizing Darwinism, the multiverse, or “cheeseburgers as the death of millions” has science credentials simply does not, by itself, make their claims more believable.
It only increases the chances they’ll get published somewhere.
Follow UD News at Twitter!