It is urgent to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for push-scooters users
August 17, 2020 3:28 AM Subscribe
SARS-CoV-2 was Unexpectedly Deadlier than Push-scooters: Could Hydroxychloroquine be the Unique Solution?, a paper published, and then retracted for "serious scientific fraud", in the Asian Journal of Medicine and Health, a suspected predatory journal. Context: Hydroxychloroquine, push-scooters, and COVID-19: A journal gets stung, and swiftly retracts.
2.3.3 Method Participants in both groups were asked to go down a 45° slope with a steep brick wall at the end on a push-scooter. They were instructed to go as fast as possible and brake at the last moment before hitting the brick wall. To reinforce ecological validity, sounds of cars and insults from other push-scooter drivers were broadcasted from the experimenters’ phones (sounds were recorded in Paris prior to lockdown). Due to limited resources and fundings, only two push-scooters (one very old, one brand new) were available. The old, rusty push-scooter was randomly attributed to participants in the control group. It should be noted that the brand new push-scooter was in zinc, which might have contributed to potentialize the HCQ + AZ combination. This study was retrospective, which is why we did not need an opinion from the ethics committee.
The review history shows that while some reviewers did struggle a bit with the "science" of the paper ("The reviewer considers that it is not scientific to say that the study place for studies 1 and 2 was the office chair where we sit every day to do part of our work"), 2 editors out of 3 greenlit its publication.
2.3.3 Method Participants in both groups were asked to go down a 45° slope with a steep brick wall at the end on a push-scooter. They were instructed to go as fast as possible and brake at the last moment before hitting the brick wall. To reinforce ecological validity, sounds of cars and insults from other push-scooter drivers were broadcasted from the experimenters’ phones (sounds were recorded in Paris prior to lockdown). Due to limited resources and fundings, only two push-scooters (one very old, one brand new) were available. The old, rusty push-scooter was randomly attributed to participants in the control group. It should be noted that the brand new push-scooter was in zinc, which might have contributed to potentialize the HCQ + AZ combination. This study was retrospective, which is why we did not need an opinion from the ethics committee.
The review history shows that while some reviewers did struggle a bit with the "science" of the paper ("The reviewer considers that it is not scientific to say that the study place for studies 1 and 2 was the office chair where we sit every day to do part of our work"), 2 editors out of 3 greenlit its publication.
The article is pretty fabulous but even better they cite "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial," an article I had never seen before and an obvious masterpiece of the genre.
posted by range at 5:35 AM on August 17, 2020 [31 favorites]
posted by range at 5:35 AM on August 17, 2020 [31 favorites]
My favourite part is where the control group is given homeopathy. That's a nice touch.
But I am mainly stunned at how much time the reviewers put into writing out detailed comments. Is there some kind of wordcount KPI at play here? Why on earth wouldn't they just say "this paper is a spoof, do not publish" and get on with their day?
posted by askmeaboutboardgames at 6:08 AM on August 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
But I am mainly stunned at how much time the reviewers put into writing out detailed comments. Is there some kind of wordcount KPI at play here? Why on earth wouldn't they just say "this paper is a spoof, do not publish" and get on with their day?
posted by askmeaboutboardgames at 6:08 AM on August 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
Oh, I dunno. The eds who said OK probably recognize the dubiousness of the journal and endorsed it just to see the inevitable conflagration. Sand in the gears of the machine.
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:19 AM on August 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:19 AM on August 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is fun! And probably good for the world.
Also, is right-aligned text and a dedicated acronym section things that happen in real journals? I can't see any reason either is bad, but it's surprising. (At least to someone who reads many journals, but almost never in related fields.)
posted by eotvos at 7:28 AM on August 17, 2020
Also, is right-aligned text and a dedicated acronym section things that happen in real journals? I can't see any reason either is bad, but it's surprising. (At least to someone who reads many journals, but almost never in related fields.)
posted by eotvos at 7:28 AM on August 17, 2020
The article is pretty fabulous but even better they cite "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial," an article I had never seen before and an obvious masterpiece of the genre.
I clicked the "This article has a correction" link and it was not what I thought it was going to be.
posted by trig at 7:55 AM on August 17, 2020 [5 favorites]
I clicked the "This article has a correction" link and it was not what I thought it was going to be.
posted by trig at 7:55 AM on August 17, 2020 [5 favorites]
Unfortunately, the valiant efforts of Editor #2 just weren't enough...
The ONE TIME reviewer #2 had it right
posted by saturday_morning at 8:45 AM on August 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
The ONE TIME reviewer #2 had it right
posted by saturday_morning at 8:45 AM on August 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
Also, is right-aligned text and a dedicated acronym section things that happen in real journals?
That right-aligned section would typically be very short. That they made it so long is part of the joke (also, e.g.:“Author ÖFH did nothing but is a very good friend of us; he helped us get some administrative paperwork.”)
Acronym lists are common, though far from universal.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:00 AM on August 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
That right-aligned section would typically be very short. That they made it so long is part of the joke (also, e.g.:“Author ÖFH did nothing but is a very good friend of us; he helped us get some administrative paperwork.”)
Acronym lists are common, though far from universal.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:00 AM on August 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
My favorite example of trolling junk journals is Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List, which is surely one of the greatest articles ever published. The authors deserve tenure for the figures alone.
posted by quiet coyote at 9:51 AM on August 17, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by quiet coyote at 9:51 AM on August 17, 2020 [13 favorites]
The eds who said OK probably recognize the dubiousness of the journal and endorsed it just to see the inevitable conflagration. Sand in the gears of the machine.
As a semi-frequent peer reviewer myself, I cannot tell you how tempting the scientific equivalent of jury nullification can be.
posted by spitbull at 5:22 AM on August 18, 2020
As a semi-frequent peer reviewer myself, I cannot tell you how tempting the scientific equivalent of jury nullification can be.
posted by spitbull at 5:22 AM on August 18, 2020
« Older The antithesis to Jane Eyre's Mrs. Reed | Plaga interworld signaling mechanism Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by sammyo at 5:23 AM on August 17, 2020 [3 favorites]