{"id":27339,"date":"2015-03-04T15:07:52","date_gmt":"2015-03-04T14:07:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=27339"},"modified":"2021-11-13T19:13:31","modified_gmt":"2021-11-13T18:13:31","slug":"dove-pubblicare-bufale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2015\/03\/04\/dove-pubblicare-bufale\/","title":{"rendered":"Dove pubblicare bufale"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nLa gestione (“governance”) dello Human Brain Project<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(HBP), un progetto da 1 miliardo di euro, \u00e8 in fase di ridefinizione<\/a><\/strong>, la Direzione per l’innovazione e l’information technology della Commissione Europea deve ancora approvare le riforme raccomandate da n comitato di esperti.<\/p>\n

Per ora\u00a0Henry Markram<\/a>\u00a0del Politecnico di Losanna lo governa da autocrate. Intende costruire una piattaforma informatica per generare software simile a quello del cervello, un abuso di analogia circolare che andrebbe multato.\u00a0Ci aveva gi\u00e0 provato con il progetto “cervello di ratto<\/a>“, altro investimento di fondi europei con risultati minimi e un gigantesco conflitto di interessi che adesso riguarda anche l’HBP.<\/p>\n

Un altro motivo per dubitare della sua capacit\u00e0 di dirigere l’HBP distribuendone i finanziamenti, \u00e8 la governance della sua casa editrice Frontiers e del conflitto d’interessi comune alle riviste sulle quali chi pubblica paga<\/a>. Troppo spesso quel “business model” dipende pi\u00f9 dalla quantit\u00e0 dei clienti che dalla qualit\u00e0 dei loro testi.
\nAvevo segnalato le fantasie di Patricia Goodson<\/a>\u00a0uscite nel settembre scorso su Frontiers in Public Health<\/em> sotto il titolo “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent\u201d. Tesi dell’autrice: l’HIV non causa l’AIDS, un complotto mondiale pagato da BigPharma ha censurato i dissensi.<\/p>\n

Le critiche erano state immediate<\/a> e la rivista aveva annunciato<\/a> un’indagine. Risultato:<\/p>\n

During the course of the investigation, Frontiers has sought expert input from the Specialty Chief Editors of the HIV and AIDS section of\u00a0<\/em>Frontiers in Public Health\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em>Frontiers in Immunology. Based on the conclusion of the investigation the article type of \u201cQuestioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent\u201d has been changed to an Opinion article, which represents the viewpoint of an individual. In addition, a commentary on the article has been published \u201cCommentary on \u2018Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent\u2019,\u201d which discusses the concerns and analyzes the viewpoint within a scientific discourse on the topic<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Tradotto in italiano, se avete i soldi, mandate pure le vostre bufale anche se, come questa, hanno ricadute letali. Reazioni della comunit\u00e0 scientifica su Retraction Watch<\/a>:<\/p>\n

To many scientists, this is too little, too late. As Johns Hopkins biologist\u00a0Kenneth Witwer notes<\/a>, publishing a rebuttal actually legitimizes the \u2018debate\u2019 by putting AIDS denialism on equal footing with the opposition. (Witwer has called on scientists to boycott the publisher in response.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Ne aggiungo una che ne riassume molte.\u00a0L’altro ieri, gli immunologi e virologi\u00a0Guido Poli del San Raffaele, Guido Silvestri dell’Emory University School of Medicine,\u00a0Andrea Savarino dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanit\u00e0 e\u00a0Giovanni Maga dell’IGM-CNR hanno mandato una lettera di protesta agli Specialty Chief Editors e l’hanno pubblicata<\/a> su HIV-Forum e va letta tutta, secondo me.<\/p>\n

Conclusione:<\/p>\n

Frontiers’ publisher has possibly misinterpreted the lack of public engagement with Dr Goodson’s absurd paper as approval of, or at least indifference to, its publication. In fact many of us have trusted the good sense of Frontiers’ editors to take appropriate action for such a bizarre submission with obvious adverse implications for public health, and did not wish to add unnecessarily to the publisher\u2019s further humiliation by contentious public criticism in the comments.<\/em>
\nUnfortunately our trust in the judgment of Frontiers’ senior editors appears to have been misplaced. The decision to demote the paper to \u201cOpinion Article\u201d will make no difference to the intended lay audience who will see only that Goodson\u2019s claims are published in a peer reviewed journal of some repute, and are therefore credible.<\/em>
\nThe original publication of the paper was an embarrassing error which has highlighted to readers and potential contributors a significant deficit in the journal\u2019s editorial oversight. In its Statement of Concern, the publisher has promised to make public the outcome of its investigation into how this paper came to appear in its journal. To date this has not occurred.<\/em>
\nThe decision by Frontiers\u2019 senior editors to support continued publication despite being made aware of the likely public health consequences of such a decision is incomprehensible, and appears to demonstrate indifference to, or a lack of understanding of, the journal\u2019s responsibilities to its readers, contributors and to the wider community.<\/em><\/p>\n

Incomprensibile mica tanto. Frontiers pubblica l’80-90% dei testi che riceve, altrimenti i profitti calano. Ognuno veda se boicottare o meno, e se dimettersi o meno da incarichi editoriali che sembravano migliorare il cv e ora molto meno.<\/p>\n

h\/t HIV Forum, e fonte<\/a> della tabella “Bullshit Bingo”.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

A proposito, complimenti per la “menzione onorevole” al duo anti-bufale Ulrika Bj\u00f6rkst\u00e9n e\u00a0Marcus Hansson<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Visto che ci sono, anche a Katia Bertoldi,<\/a> cervello in fuga a Harvard, per i nuovi materiali<\/a> presentati all’American Physics Association.<\/p>\n

E al congressista Grijalba<\/a> per riconoscere di aver esagerato.<\/p>\n

A proposito di Big Oil che inquina l’informazione sul clima, su PLoS One<\/em> Sander van der Linden et al.<\/a> pubblicano\u00a0i risultati <\/a>di un esperimento di comunicazione della scienza fatto in USA:<\/p>\n

by strategically sowing seeds of doubt, organized opponents of climate change action have continually tried to undermine the validity of the scientific consensus argument.\u00a0As this research shows, such attempts could potentially decrease public engagement with climate change. Nonetheless, the present research also indicates the potential efficacy of consensus-messaging campaigns in mitigating such skepticism, as well as in generating support for public action on climate change. Particularly, repeated exposure to simple messages that correctly state the actual scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is a strategy likely to help counter the concerted efforts to misinform the public.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La gestione (“governance”) dello Human Brain Project\u00a0(HBP), un progetto da 1 miliardo di euro, \u00e8 in fase di ridefinizione, la Direzione per l’innovazione e l’information technology della Commissione Europea deve ancora approvare le riforme raccomandate da n comitato di esperti. Per ora\u00a0Henry Markram\u00a0del Politecnico di Losanna lo governa da autocrate. Intende costruire una piattaforma informatica… Continua a leggere Dove pubblicare bufale<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,10,20,22],"tags":[236,437,1538,1561,1569,2817,2852,3280,3299,3325,4196,5019,5229],"class_list":["post-27339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bufala","category-clima","category-medicina","category-neuroscienze","tag-aids","tag-andrea-rossi","tag-comunicazione-della-scienza","tag-conflitto-di-interessi","tag-consensus","tag-frontiers","tag-fusione-fredda","tag-hbp","tag-henry-markram","tag-hiv","tag-marcus-hansson","tag-open-access","tag-patricia-goodson","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27339"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43544,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27339\/revisions\/43544"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}