Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Study which questions the safety of covid vaccines. Surely this will be discredited by the end of the week?

12 replies

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 21:44

www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

OP posts:
Walkaround · 28/06/2021 21:52

Judging by this article, it should certainly be discredited!
www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/beware-academics-getting-reeled-scam-journals/

“ The publisher, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), churns out nearly 160 scholarly journals a year, many of them of mediocre quality, according to Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, and one of the world’s leading experts on what he calls “predatory” open access publishing. Each week, MDPI and other questionable publishers hound Dr. Lee by email, asking her to review submissions that she considers shoddy. Mr. Beall has called this particular environmental publication a “pretend journal.” So when Dr. Lee next saw the biology student, she alerted her to the potential problems and redirected her to more credible scholarly publications, such as FACETS, a Canadian open access journal.

Predatory and mediocre journals are based on the model of open access publishing in which authors pay fees to have their work published online. However, unlike legitimate journals, they bombard academics with spam emails, accept almost all submissions and overstate the rigour of their peer-review processes. They also often conveniently neglect to mention publication fees until late in the process.

In other cases, authors are complicit in the scam, publishing numerous articles in these questionable journals to earn quick and easy academic credit at their institutions. “There are some predatory journals that specialize in that, charging only $200 or $300 for publication,” says Mr. Beall. This compares to fees of $1,500 or more for most of the large, reputable open access publishers. “If you need academic credit, the market provides a solution,” he says, adding: “Universities are particularly susceptible to these ethical breaches and predatory practices.”

youshouldbeplotting · 28/06/2021 22:04

Even MDPI itself is now sounding alarm bells on the article

twitter.com/MDPIOpenAccess/status/1409506676600971277

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:10

I very much hope that is is fully discredited because its' conclusions are quite worrying.

OP posts:
Reallybadidea · 28/06/2021 22:13

It already has been. Good thread here on why it's utter shite mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/status/1409293078817427457

ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:40

nope, a study that has attracted widespread criticism due to it's poor methodology and biased reported. Note there isn't a single epidemiologists, clinician or statistician on the author list.

This a good summary of it's (many!) issues from academic twitter:

twitter.com/GidMK/status/1409406534602215424

ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:41

as he states...

Using reporting systems like this is a common anti-vaccine trope. We KNOW that many of the events in the reporting system ARE NOT LINKED TO VACCINATION because we investigate them carefully
@GidMK

Because of this, we have two awful, useless numbers being compared to each other. The true rate of deaths CAUSED by vaccines is 100sx lower than this paper calculates, and the number of deaths PREVENTED is 100sx higher

His twitter peer review has been retweeted 100s of time by credible scientists who are shocked it was even accepted for publication in the first place

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:45

I'm sorry but twitter?!?

The sm platform is now the arbiter of scientific facts?

Everyday is a school day...

OP posts:
ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:48

@ZednotZee

I'm sorry but twitter?!?

The sm platform is now the arbiter of scientific facts?

Everyday is a school day...

As plenty of people have explained on this and previous threads @ZednotZee
  • predatory journals exist, and publish utter crap. There was an example a while back of a paper on pokemon causing coronavirus (zubats) that was published. This has only got worse during the pandemic.
  • the paper is complete rubbish and is authored by three non-experts
  • academic twitter has become an accepted way of conducting informal peer review, and is pretty necessary in the current climate of misinformation
  • the thread that summarises in the issues with the paper has been retweeted hundreds of times, with experts agreeing and adding their critique
  • two editors have resigned from the journal over this incident
ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:49

@ZednotZee

I very much hope that is is fully discredited because its' conclusions are quite worrying.
I really don't understand why you'd start this thread of misinformation if this is the case
ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:53

You don't?

OK well look, I am interested in seeing what happens with this study. I assumed others may be too.

And look what I have learned about twitter's new status!

I don't believe that you really need to malign my intentions here.

OP posts:
ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:57

In the case that you are somewhat serious @ZednotZee, academic twitter is a really really good resource if you're a non scientist and want a balanced viewpoint on a recent paper that's come out

it's become the norm for scientists to publish tweetorials critiquing or (rarely) complimenting papers with lots of other experts chiming in. You can see everyone's credentials and know that they really are an epidemiologist from so and so university.

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 23:02

Well that's good to know.
Its not a platform I use, MN and reddit are the totality of my SM usage.

I know tone is difficult to judge, and so for the avoidance of misapprehension I am in no way being facetious.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page