Medical journals publish many different types of papers that inform doctors about the latest research advances and the latest treatments for their patients. They publish articles that describe laboratory-based research into the causes of diseases and the identification of potential new drugs. They publish the results of early clinical trials in which a few patients are given a potential new drug to check its safety.
Many medical journals require that authors and peer reviewers declare whether they have any conflicts of interest.
Such knowledge can be important for readers when assessing the paper and for editors when assessing the peer review comments.
Editors can also have conflicts of interest, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors states that: “Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge”. Furthermore, editors are advised to “publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interest related to the commitments of journal staff”. Journals may have other conflicts of interest than those of their editors, and the most important of these is likely related to the publication of industry-supported clinical trials. It is important for the industry to publish reports of large trials in prestigious journals, as such reports are essential for clinical decision making and for the sales of drugs and devices (What is the best evidence for making clinical decisions? Guyatt GH, Naylor D, Richardson WS, Green L, Haynes RB, Wilson MC, Cook DJ, Jaeschke RZ JAMA. 2000 Dec 27; 284(24):3127-8.)
It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” Richard Horton ( Editor in Chief of The Lancet) Vol 385 April 11, 2015.
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ) makes her view of the subject quite plain: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”.
Plos Med 2010 Oct. 26
To make matters worse a vast ecosystem of predatory publishers is churning out “fake science” for profit. But the vast majority of those articles skip almost all of the traditional checks and balances of scientific publishing, from peer review to an editorial board. Instead, most journals run by those companies will publish anything submitted to them – provided the required fee is paid. Traditional academic publishing charges academics who want to read scientific articles, while not paying the academics who write the articles or provide services such as peer review. That tension led to the rise, in the internet age, of open access journals, which charge the author to publish, but don’t charge readers, as well as of “pre-print” repositories, which don’t charge anyone anything, but provide no services like peer review.
Re muto. New medical journal is a fake journal in cancer research and oncology, rich of scientific literature and pictures.
You don’t know if the studies, which are published in this journal are good, worthless, or bad, because you cannot be sure if and what kind of editorial process or peer review takes place there.
But this is a medical journal and you are supposed to believe in it.
Through images of both real and depicted nature, i help to give truthfulness to the written texts, using multiple photographs, unrelated fragments of the outside world collected over time in a variety of locations ( hospital units, postcards and advertising pharmaceutical poster, personal images archive ).
All these texts of methods of cancer management have been selected by the NCBI , (National Center for Biotechnology Information), U.S. National Library of Medicine: Unproven Methods of Cancer book.
In 1955, the American Cancer Society established a committee that served as a central coordinating force for tracking and evaluating dubious methods of cancer management. The committee originally referred to these methods as “unproven”. In 1991, the society switched to the term "questionable," which would not include new methods that are being studied responsibly. Today the society uses the term "alternative and complementary methods," which include a few methods that could conceivably turn out to be useful.
Re muto (silent king) is an anagram of tumore (tumor).
Il Re muto
new medical journal
installation | archival print/Hahnemuhle Paper/ Photo Rag Matt | photographies variable size | postcards | texts |edition of 3 + 3 set box | 2017/2018
© all rights reserved | 2019 | Antonio La Grotta