More crap journals?

October 4th, 2008 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, MMR, mondo academico, publication bias, regulating research, utter nonsense | 15 Comments »

Ben Goldacre
The Guardian
Saturday October 4 2008

Important and timely news from the Journal of Medical Hypotheses this week: ejaculating could be “a potential treatment of nasal congestion in mature males.” My reason for bothering you with this will become clear later.

The first thing to note is that this is not an entirely ludicrous idea, but it is a tenuous one. Most decongestant pills work by increasing the activity in something called the “sympathetic nervous system”, which is involved in lots of largely automatic things in the body, like sweating, blood pressure, and pupil size as well as the “fight or flight” mechanism. More activitity in the sympathetic system causes the vessels of the nasal mucosa to constrict, reducing their volume and so clearing the blockage, but they can also have lots of fairly unpleasant side effects, because they tend to affect the whole of the sympathetic nervous system.

The argument from Dr Zarrintan is as follows. “The emission phase of ejaculation is under the control of the sympathetic nervous system… ejaculation will stimulate adrenergic receptors… and stimulation of your adrenergic receptors will give you relief from your cold.” It’s a chain of reasoning that would make a nutritionist blush, and has already been responded to by a letter, entitled: “Ejaculation as a treatment for nasal congestion in men is inconvenient, unreliable and potentially hazardous” (in which it is explained that ejaculation increases blood pressure and heart rate, which has its own side effects, increases androgens in the body which could increase prostate cancer, and so on).

Now I genuinely love the Journal of Medical Hypotheses, published by Elsevier. Last year, you will remember, they carried an almost surreally crass paper in which two italian doctors argued that “mongoloid” really was an appropriate term for people with Down syndrome after all, because such people share many characteristics with oriental populations (including: sitting cross legged; eating small amounts of lots of different types of food with MSG in it; and an enjoyment of handicrafts).

Their articles are routinely quoted with great authority in the output of antivaccination conspiracy theorists, miracle cure marketers, and other interesting characters, but it can also print some interesting stuff. In that sense it serves a useful purpose, but it also acts as an extreme example of something we should all be aware of: you’re not supposed to take everything in an academic journal as read, final, and valid.

I once had a conversation with the editor, Dr Bruce Charlton, and he raised two excellent points on the value of publishing loopy papers (my phraseology, more serious discussion from him here). The first was that academics must be free to just get on and publish things that outsiders might find weird, or misinterpret, without worrying about what the wider public might think. The Downs paper above was simply uninformative and offensive, pushing this argument to the limit, but excepting such cases, it is a view I would heartily endorse.

Academics should be free to write tenuous papers, and the infamous 1998 MMR Lancet paper is a perfect example: it described the experiences of 12 children with autism and some bowel problems, who’d had the MMR vaccine; it didn’t tell us much about MMR causing autism, but nobody should censor themselves from publishing such work on the off-chance that it might trigger a ten year long epic scare story from mischievous journalists.

But Charlton also raises a more interesting point. He feels that the ideas market requires a diverse range of publication venues, and so his journal is deliberately not “peer-reviewed”, the process where the great and the good look at your article and decide if it is worth publishing, or methodologically flawed. Peer review is a system that has worked okay, ish, to stop utter nonsense appearing in very competitive high quality journals, but it is also riddled with holes, acts as no bar to nonsense being published in obscure peer-reviewed journals (where the bar is much lower), and is also vulnerable to bullying and corruption.

Charlton’s journal publishes ideas rather than data. But we have to accept that a large amount of bad quality data is being published, in the 5,000 medical academic journals that already exist (printing 15 million papers to date), and in many respects, we have to hope that this situation will get even worse. Two weeks ago we saw that only one in four cancer trials is actually published. There are widespread demands that all negative findings must be published, so that they are at least accessible, but this will often mean that inadequately analysed data from less competent studies are placed in repositories, or published in journals that will take very poor quality papers.

The signal-to-noise ratio in the scientific literature is getting ever lower, and the simple fact that something has been “published” is becoming as meaningless as it always should have been: ideas and evidence are there to be read, and critically appraised. Science is not about arguing from authority, and the era of “it’s published so it must be true” is mercifully drawing to a close.

If you like what I do, and you want me to do more, you can: buy my books Bad Science and Bad Pharma, give them to your friends, put them on your reading list, employ me to do a talk, or tweet this article to your friends. Thanks! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

15 Responses

  1. JQH said,

    October 4, 2008 at 1:54 am

    All sorts of obscene comments come to mind but I’ll wait til I’m sober & see if they’re still funny.

  2. Steve Page said,

    October 4, 2008 at 10:19 am

    Some people give me a funny look if I blow my nose in public. I’m not sure that this method of clearing nasal congestion would lead to less public attention, to be honest.

  3. le canard noir said,

    October 4, 2008 at 10:24 am

    Will NICE approve this or will we get a postcode lottery? Will Gordon and his NuLabour NHS cronies deny us this vital remedy, or will we have to take this treatment into our own hands?

    Sorry, thought I was on the Daily Mail message boards then.

  4. gazza said,

    October 4, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    @le canard noir

    I don’t think NICE needs to be involved in ejaculation therapy. It’s quite amenable to self medication – overdosing may be a minor possibility leading to long term sight problems possibly but other risks are low.

    The danger is letting this new treatment get into the hands (literally) of CAM therpists. I can just imagine a ‘Society of Hand Relief Practitioners’ being recruited on the streets of Soho right now, not just to sort out nasal congestion but every other ailment known to mankind. It may even get incorporated into other quack approaches associated with massage!

    But at least the homeopathic version of this therapy is doomed…..

  5. Daibhid C said,

    October 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    “no bar to nonsense being published in obscure peer-reviewed journals (where the bar is much lower)”

    It occurs to me that the bar could easily be completely reversed: I’m sure there are peer-reviewed homeopathy journals, in which every paper is carefully scrutinised by, er, other homeopaths…

  6. wilsontown said,

    October 4, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    “It occurs to me that the bar could easily be completely reversed: I’m sure there are peer-reviewed homeopathy journals, in which every paper is carefully scrutinised by, er, other homeopaths…”

    Such journals do indeed exist.

    They even look superficially like proper scientific journals.

  7. le canard noir said,

    October 4, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    fantastic. The alternative therapy with a happy ending. I just hope ofquack gets involved and Prince Charles sets up the appropriate national proficiency standards. If the university of central lancashire do not want to set up a BSc in nasal congestion relief then I am perfectly willing to set up my own non-accredited college in this new therapy. I could probably sign off and issue certificates to two or three practitioners a day, if push came to shove.

  8. Diotima said,

    October 4, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    Yes! The quickest way to a woman’s heart; ‘I’ve got a terribly stuffed up nose, would you mind. . .?’

  9. chltx said,

    October 5, 2008 at 3:20 am

    “a potential treatment of nasal congestion in mature males.”

    Interesting. My personal experience is exactly the opposite.

  10. Pro-reason said,

    October 5, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    “Interesting. My personal experience is exactly the opposite.”

    That’s because you’re hunched forward too much.

  11. mostly sunny said,

    October 6, 2008 at 11:51 am

    I fell for that old line… once


  12. ephemera said,

    November 4, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    I guess they’ve never heard of Buteyko breathing… works a treat for me….!

    But then again I’m not a fella.

  13. Ironmonkey66 said,

    May 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    I entirely agree that the era of “it’s published so it must be true” does not apply anymore. And I wonder if it has ever been the case…after all one quality of a scientist is to remain critical in the face of new results and hypotheses, whether they come from obscure or prominent journals. I personally have encountered some very low quality papers in well-known and usually high quality journals.

  14. kimekime said,

    April 1, 2010 at 5:51 am

    cheap wedding invitations
    cheap prom dresses
    cheap bridesmaid dresses
    lace wigs

  15. laptopbatteriesshop said,

    April 3, 2010 at 4:00 am

    We don’t just offer the typical cheap laptop batteries that you may find from other e-retailers, we pride ourselves with providing our customers with the most cost effective solution towards laptop battery replacement without sacrificing quality. All laptop batteries and AC adapters will meet or exceed OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) specifications. Every that is available on our website is also guaranteed to look, fit, and perform just like your original laptop battery (and usually better). The only real difference is the price. You don’t have to pay a ridiculously high price just for a laptop battery. We produce over 95% of the laptop batteries, laptop chargers, laptop chargers and other products that we sell. There’s also no middle man for us to pay. Lower cost for us translates into lower prices for you.