Science News aggregator sort of 'blows up' a thing or two.

[Kwaka]

As far as science journals go, the Lancet has a long history and good reputation. It still sufferers from the same forces that are corrupting science where it is not ethical to question vaccination safety.

The Lancet was used in the covid psychological war where it published a fraudulent study soon after Trump mentioned the benefits of HCQ. It did not matter that this paper was shortly retracted as investigations into the data found a pile of BS. The media had its talking points to direct public opinion and the WHO stood by this fraud to push the emergency use authorization of its mRNA technology.

Influential Lancet Article on HCQ Retracted

[Maxmars]

I read something a while back that the peer review process, lack of academic integrity, and poor DoE has led to something like 30% of peer-reviewed journal articles have any real validity. I honestly can't remember who put it out, but it was one of the big medical/scientific bodies. The gist was that pressure to publish and overwhelming personal bias was interfering at all levels. 

I wouldn't consider journal studies a waste of time, but they are incredibly flawed and always funded by someone or something, so you can expect certain quality. Mix that with the well known massive political bias amongst academia and you have a pretty flawed system.

I certainly 'feel' some harmony with the idea that what seems a reasonable proposition: Accumulate scientific research according to scientific standards.... something along that line of thought is the ideal of "science journalism."

But no... we don't "deserve" science journalism to be about science, flatly, for it's value to the future...

Now "science" is being used to "send a human message"... like propaganda, and social-messaging.

The problem seems like 'scientific prestige' is held by a monopoly... "conform" or be excluded, "belong" or be unheard... "measure up or be silent"  It is the 'cloister' mechanism at work.

I can't imagine it's a bad point to exclude the distractions of ignorance... but it's not all ignorance, is it?
How much has the 'prestige' empowered turned out to be shit?  In my memory, those stand out...
and some remain...

It has it's utility, that's for certain... but ultimately, I've lost my faith in the "mainstream" intelligentsia...

And too many times facts and opinions merge into a 'politically or ideologically' convenient narratives... 

I'm no scholar... and I know enough to see all is not well - generally - for the 'institution' of 'science' ...
and the Lancet seems a prominent example of of this "evolution" of "science journalism."

[quintessentone]

I'd bypass the journals altogether and do what the article below advises, that being, go to other links for peer-reviewed papers, look for reproduced studies worldwide, check and read citations (as I do sometimes). It's not the science that needs to be scrutinized, it's the 'follow the money to the publishers'.

---------

"To put all of that another way, the money flow goes like this:

1. You pay the government via taxes
   
2. The government gives a tiny portion of that to scientists to do research
   
3. Scientists have to spend a good chunk of that money to publish their research
   
4. Journals make billions of dollars in profit by charging you (the public) to access the results of the research that you already paid for via taxes.
   

It is an insane system that robs scientists of countless amounts of precious research funding that we could be using to actually test new questions, all while preventing many from reading the research that, in many cases, they funded with their taxes. Sadly, scientists are trapped in this system. We have to publish our research, and if we want good jobs, we have to publish in high-ranking journals, which means we have to publish in journals that charge us. Publishers know this and exploit it. Papers often cost $3,000 or more to publish. So, if you want to know my personal opinion about academic publishing companies and whether or not it is ethical to bypass their fees via Sci-Hub, I say screw them. It’s a stupid, unethical system that should be overthrown. Read up me hearties, it’s a pirate’s life for me (here endeth my rant)."

How to find and access peer-reviewed studies (for free) | The Logic of Science

[ANNEE]

I'd bypass the journals altogether and do what the article below advises, that being, go to other links for peer-reviewed papers, look for reproduced studies worldwide, check and read citations (as I do sometimes). It's not the science that needs to be scrutinized, it's the 'follow the money to the publishers'.

Yes, I've learned that over my many years of researching.  

Journals or any "listed as" science review papers, etc -- is full of opinions and mis-information.

It can be a good place to start - to get an idea - but that idea needs to be researched for credible support.

. . . . and the money.  New scientists - new ideas getting grants?  Not likely.  Such a shame.