Exclusive
Status: 07/29/2021 6:33 a.m.
More than half a million scientific texts have been published on Covid-19. The flood of publications is pushing the scientific test systems to their limits – with potentially dangerous effects.
In probably no other area is there more research than the Covid 19 disease. Thousands of studies come onto the market every month – from universities, research institutes, companies and other institutions. As early as May 2020, the magazine “Science” complained that scientists in “Covid-19 studies are drowning“would – both those who want to stay up to date and those who check the results. A database currently lists more than half a million publications on the subject.
Again and again, falsified, sloppily created or scientifically dubious texts get through editorial review processes and have to be withdrawn from the publications – not infrequently if they have already attracted scientific or media attention. This is what happened with two studies by Harald Walach.
Absurd claims sold as science
Science authors Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus have been documenting for theirs for more than ten years Retraction Watch Blog the development – and are currently working intensively on withdrawn studies on Covid-19. Among them are highly obscure investigations: One according to which 5G cellular systems allegedly stimulate cells to produce corona viruses; another too Amuletsthat are supposed to help against the disease; but also an internationally acclaimed study on the alleged Benefits of ivermectin against Covid-19apparently based on falsified data.
A higher proportion of withdrawn Covid-19 studies compared to pre-Corona times has not yet been determined, Oransky explains tagesschau.de: “As a rule of thumb, about four of 10,000 studies will be withdrawn. So far, we have listed 146 withdrawn Covid-19 studies, which is extrapolated to a similar level.”
Peer review process
In the peer review process (verification by peers), scientific work, in particular articles for scientific publications, is reviewed by independent reviewers from the same subject. If they express this criticism of the text, the authors must satisfactorily refute it or correct their work.
In general, the peer reviewers remain anonymous to the researchers. However, some clients allow the submitting researchers to propose reviewers themselves or to exclude certain reviewers.
Expect further withdrawals
However, Oransky does not expect it to stay that way: Before the pandemic, it took an average of more than a year to 18 months for a study to be withdrawn – sometimes even significantly longer because protests by the scientists concerned had to be examined and contradictions to be resolved. It can therefore be assumed that significantly more disputes are to be expected.
Volker Stollorz, Managing Director of the Science Media Center (SMC), also believes that there could be further withdrawals: There have been a veritable flood of preprints – that is, unchecked preliminary publications – and studies that are poor in design. They could not answer the questions posed in them – for example due to a small number of cases, methodological errors or other weak points. In addition, unknown researchers or those with specific intentions have a strong interest in publishing papers with desirable but unconfirmed statements.
Publisher deliberately deceived in some cases
In addition, “authors with interests in the pollution of the scientific communication organs actively try to undermine the elementary methodological standards and develop considerable energy to publish crude theses somewhere as ‘research'”, says Stollorz. In the case of non-experts, this could cause confusion if, for example, steep theses were partially marketed as science, as in the case of the Walach publications. Fortunately, such flawed studies in renowned journals would be exposed more quickly, at least after their publication.
Last but not least, there are also economic interests that weaken the peer review system, according to Stollorz: “Since the number of scientific publication sites continues to rise sharply for economic reasons and even renowned publishers are constantly setting up new journals around their ‘flagship journals’, the The percentage of inadequate publications, especially in inferior magazines, will rise sharply, “he fears. As a science journalist, he alone receives three inquiries a day to publish his own articles in a “scientific journal” with a melodious name – if he wants to pay for them.
Too little time, too few experts
The pandemic has indeed acted like a water heater for science: Since June, the average time from submitting a study to its acceptance has been just six days, says science journalist Oransky. Each submitted paper is checked by an average of three reviewers, who each would have to spend around four to eight hours – and that only in the first round. If there are any doubts, even more experts have to be called in.
This leads to overload – and to the fact that auditors are also used who lack the necessary expertise. Oransky reports that he was himself asked by four publications to review Covid-19 studies, although he does not do any research in the field: he only published a paper on withdrawn Covid-19 studies and is thus an expert on the disease ended up in the databases.
SMC Managing Director Stollorz also observes the development with great skepticism: “One of the challenges in this pandemic was maintaining high peer review standards despite the extreme acceleration of the review process. Even reputable scientific journals with good quality control had some spectacular withdrawals.”
Hurrying can also make sense
However, the need to hurry does not only have disadvantages, says Oransky: “We live in a special time”. There are good reasons to publish studies quickly during a pandemic. “Otherwise we still wouldn’t have a vaccine”. “We’re just not being honest about the limitations of the process: the peer review process will never meet the high expectations that are placed on it.”
However, Oransky sees opportunities to improve this: “I think, for example, that ‘open reviewing’, even if it is anonymous, would be of great help. In this process, the results and comments of the editors, authors and reviewers, possibly also their identity , disclosed at any point in the peer review or publication process. “We would then also find out why papers were rejected and what was problematic about them.”
“The peer review process is not a binary process,” points out Oransky – so the result is not always clear and final: “A paper that is accepted does not necessarily have to be correct; one that has been rejected does not not correct”.