The most recent discussion abut consciousness was going in circles, having now a dozen of competing theories as summarized by chatGPT and reworked by me for omissions. Not sure if all the summaries and references are good, but maybe this is a good starting point to understand the background of a new paper.
Continue reading The great consciousness debate
Citation quality
There is a super interesting study on citation quality in scientific studies.
In this study, we introduced a computational pipeline to analyze citation fidelity on a large scale and developed an automated measure to evaluate how authors report prior findings. By applying this method to 13 million citation sentence pairs, we uncovered several key insights into the dynamics of scholarly communication and show citation fidelity is higher with closer proximity. Through a quasi-causal experiment, we further establish that the “telephone effect” contributes to information loss: when citing papers exhibit low fidelity to the original claim, future papers that cite both the citing paper and the original show even lower fidelity to the original.
Clearly incorrect or misleading information couldn’t be identified in this study although the definition a cut-off should be possible.
And well, I would be also very interested if there are differences by scientific field.
Don’t get your work published? Just create your own journal!
This is the super dangerous strategy of the Alt-Right and allies.
There is of course a rise and fall of scientific journals over the years but in the past this was more driven by scientific interests than by providing a scientific backup of political decisions. What if we can’t rely on PubMed anymore?
PubMed is incredibly reliable. And a lot depends on it. It’s an ecosystem built around MEDLINE, the steady feed of new publications in biomedicine: It determines which journals count, takes their output in, adds valuable information and linkages, and feeds it back out – free to users globally. And there’s a lot more, too, that we rely on from the NCBI (the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the NIH’s National Library of Medicine).
Last month a prominent right-wing dark money group launched its own Academy Public Health journal to compete with other medical journals.
At first blush, the RealClear Foundation’s foray into public health research looks like serious venture. The academy’s webpage claims it is an “international association public health scholars, researchers and practicing professionals in the field of public health and its many specialties,” and declares that “members are united in their commitment to open discourse, intellectual rigor and broad, equitable access to scientific discovery.”
Carl Bergstrom was the first to note the anti-vaxxer clique
The bylaws reveal a wild sort of National Academy of Sciences cosplay, dialed up to eleven and designed to exclude everybody except fellow…er…contrarians. Only members can publish, new members are brought in by existing ones, and the editor-in-chief cannot reject members’ peers.
Who is on the editorial board? It looks like a COVID-19 misinformation rehabilitation group
Martin Kulldorff, PhD
Andrew Noymer, MSc, PhD
Carl Heneghan, BM, DPhil
Christine Stabell Benn, MD, PhD, DMSc
David Livermore, PhD
Günter Kampf, MD
Helen Colhoun, DMed, MPH
Jayanta Bhattacharya, MD, PhD
John Ioannidis, MD, DSc
Maged Kamel Boulos, MD, PhD
Marty Makary, MD, MPH
Mohammad Ali Mansournia, MD, MPH, PhD
Peter Gøtzsche, MD, DMSc, MSc
Ruth Gil Prieto, PhD
Sander Greenland, DrPH
Scott Atlas, MD
Sergio Recuenco, MD, MPH, DrPH
Simon Wood, PhD
Sunetra Gupta, PhD
Tom Jefferson, MD, MSc
Walker Bergman is going through all the names – basically all of them have been prominent voices in discussions about COVID-19, infectious disease modeling, vaccine effectiveness, and public health policies.
Several, such as Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, and Jay Bhattacharya, were involved in the Great Barrington Declaration, which criticized strict lockdown measures and advocated for focused protection of vulnerable populations during the pandemic.
Others, like John Ioannidis and Carl Heneghan, have been critical of certain public health responses. While they are not right-wing themselves, their ideas have been embraced by right-leaning or libertarian political groups. More recently some names have become more famous as reported by WIRED.
Stille Post
Wer erinnert sich noch an die unsägliche Diskussion zu 6.000 NO2 Toten? Aber wir haben nichts daraus gelernt, denn ein paar Jahre später kam dann die pseudowissenschaftliche Hochrechnung einer europäischen Agentur names EEA zu 1.200 toten Kindern.
Und weil es PR mässig so gut lief, dann Ende des letzten Jahres wieder einen dieser Berichte der EEA ohne nachvollziehbare Methodik und ohne wissenschaftliche Grundlage. Wie zu erwarten wird der Bericht aber prompt von der DUH aufgegriffen und nachbearbeitet.
Es hat so ein bisschen etwas von dem “Stille Post” oder “Flüsterpost” Spiel. Die EEA raunt der DHU etwas ins Ohr, die flüstert es an das UBA, die flüstert es dann an die dpa, die Zeitungen übernehmen es.
Zum Glück aber gibt es Übermedien.
Cowards
Michael Eisen recently commented on Bluesky on the scientific societies
I commented that this is a déjà vue from spring 2020 when scientific societies didn’t wanted to sacrifice their second cash cow – the conference fees. A few minutes later I had some doubts if this wasn’t a cheeky remark but here is what I found out rather quickly.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/57032
Suggests that funding bodies should reimburse researchers for canceled travel, even if cancellations are voluntary – so the money stays with the organizers
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40620-023-01723-8
Reducing costs and expanding access can be achieved through tiered registration fees based on income or professional status also for online events – although there are only minimal costs for the society.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7229876/
Complaint of dramatic effects on scientific societies.
A kidney care company did not cancel its conference even as the coronavirus spread. One attendee has been diagnosed, prompting fears that it will spread among doctors and patients.
https://www.papercurve.com/post/the-medical-conference-is-dead-long-live-the-medical-conference
Medical societies responded particularly slowly and conservatively to sudden, strict event curtailment. After all, there was no way of knowing just how quickly the coronavirus would spread, nor how long it would take us to get a handle on it, medically speaking.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.726037/full
Among 33 conferences analyzed, 13 (39.4%) were conducted as scheduled, nine (27.3%) were canceled, eight (24.3%) were postponed to 2021 or 2022, and three (9.1%) were delayed but conducted in 2020.
I asked chatGPT for scientific fields that have completely collapsed
There are very few instances where an entire scientific field has completely collapsed but there are cases where once-prominent fields were either abandoned, replaced, or significantly redefined due to paradigm shifts. It would have taken me 2 weeks to compile this list while chatGPT could do that in seconds (and denies to have used Wikipedia). Here are some examples:
1. Phlogiston Theory (18th Century) – Replaced by Modern Chemistry
- What it was: A widely accepted theory that explained combustion and rusting as the release of an invisible substance called “phlogiston.”
- Why it collapsed: Antoine Lavoisier’s discovery of oxygen in the late 18th century showed that combustion was actually a reaction with oxygen, not the loss of phlogiston. This led to the rise of modern chemistry and the fall of phlogiston theory.
2. Geocentrism (Ptolemaic Model) – Replaced by Heliocentrism
- What it was: The belief that Earth was the center of the universe, with the Sun and planets orbiting it.
- Why it collapsed: Observations by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler provided overwhelming evidence for a heliocentric solar system, where planets orbit the Sun.
3. Vitalism – Replaced by Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
- What it was: The idea that living organisms were fundamentally different from non-living things because they contained a “vital force” beyond physical and chemical processes.
- Why it collapsed: Discoveries in biochemistry and molecular biology, such as the synthesis of urea (Wöhler, 1828) and the discovery of DNA’s structure, showed that life can be explained through chemistry and physics alone.
4. Catastrophism (Pre-Darwinian Geology) – Replaced by Uniformitarianism
- What it was: The belief that Earth’s geological features were shaped primarily by sudden, short-lived catastrophic events (like Noah’s flood).
- Why it collapsed: Charles Lyell’s uniformitarianism argued that slow, gradual processes (like erosion and sedimentation) shaped the Earth over millions of years. This view became the foundation for modern geology.
5. Alchemy – Replaced by Modern Chemistry
- What it was: A mix of mystical, philosophical, and proto-scientific ideas aimed at transforming base metals into gold and discovering the “elixir of life.”
- Why it collapsed: The development of systematic chemical experimentation and the discovery of elements through atomic theory rendered alchemy obsolete.
6. Ether Theory – Replaced by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
- What it was: The idea that light waves needed a medium called “luminiferous ether” to propagate through space.
- Why it collapsed: The Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) failed to detect ether, and Einstein’s theory of relativity (1905) showed that light does not need a medium to travel.
7. Spontaneous Generation – Replaced by Germ Theory
- What it was: The belief that living organisms could arise spontaneously from non-living matter (e.g., maggots appearing from rotting meat).
- Why it collapsed: Louis Pasteur’s experiments in the 19th century proved that life comes from pre-existing life, leading to the acceptance of germ theory.
While complete collapses of scientific fields are rare, history shows that many dominant ideas have been overturned or refined as new evidence and methods emerge.
Der MDPI Deal (2 of 3)
Fortsetzung von Teil 1 (Studie Kassel, Laborjournal, THE, QSS)
Warum MDPI fragwürdig ist? Scholarlykitchen beschreibt das Delisting des wichtigsten MDPI Journals
MDPI’s largest journal, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), was delisted from the Web of Science (WoS) in March 2023. What came next was both expected and staggering. The journal shrunk by 88% in comparison to its peak. It published about 1,800 monthly papers in the three-month period from December 2022 to February 2023, and it dropped to about 200 monthly papers in summer 2023.
Die Auswirkungen des freien Falls auch im Detail bei Scholarly Kitchen beschrieben.
Die nächste fragwürdige Praktik ist die Stealth Correction – die nachträgliche heimliche Korrektur eines bereits veröffentlichten Artikels, die bei Zeitschriften ohne Papierausgabe und ohne Blockchain Verifizierung jederzeit möglich ist, so der Artikel von René Aquarius. MDPI folgt in der Blacklist hier an zweiter Stelle direkt hinter dem dubiosen Verlag BAKIS Productions LTD.
Die wohl umfangreichste Analyse von MDPI steht auf dem Blog von Paolo Crosetto “Is MDPI a predatory publisher?”
So, is MDPI predatory or not? I think it has elements of both. I would name their methods aggressive rent extracting, rather than predatory. And I also think that their current methods & growth rate are likely to make them shift towards more predatory over time.
Das leitet über zu der Frage: Wie kann die ZB MED mit einem solchen Verlag eine Vereinbarung über Millionen Steuergelder treffen? Jasmin Schmitz ist die zuständige ZB MED Expertin.
Sie hat offensichtlich eine andere Meinung, denn sie teilt den Laborjournal Artikel über die “Grauzone zwischen seriös und räuberisch” auf Social Media und findet den Verlag nicht seriös sondern “befremdlich”.
MDPI bezahlt keine Reviewer sondern formatiert lediglich PDFs und dafür geben wir Steuergelder aus?
Imagine dragons – whatever it takes
Falling too fast to prepare for thisTripping in the world could be dangerousEverybody circling, it’s vulturousNegative, nepotist
Everybody waiting for the fall of manEverybody praying for the end of timesEverybody hoping they could be the oneI was born to run, I was born for this
The new poster girl of the technocrats
The debate over research privatization is intensifying. Here is my annotated transcript of Sabine Hossenfelder’s latest video.
I recently angered some people by saying that if I had any choice in the matter, I wouldn’t want my taxes to pay for research on the description of smell in the English literature. Some have taken that to mean that I want to defund all of academia. So let’s talk about it. Should we defund academia?
I appreciate all experts in English literature; it’s part of our cultural heritage, like many other things worth preserving. Acknowledging my own limitations, I avoid commenting on topics like English literature or dark matter, as they are beyond my expertise. So why doesn’t SH recognize hers? Continue reading The new poster girl of the technocrats
Surfing physics
Pubmed already dying?
Pubmed is again down today following some cryptic messages last week.
Medpage has a longer article discussing the fate of the database given the fact that the Trump administration has signaled its hostility to the NIH and research in general.
1.Make it inaccessible. …This one is straightforward: lay off everyone involved in maintaining PubMed and take it offline.
2. Stop updating it. Similar to the first one … stop adding new publications to the database…
3. Change the indexing system for journals. This could be weaponized to punish journals… [for] research on certain health policies and populations, and so on.
4. Strip the indexing system for journals. .. This would be the “flood the zone” method. … This would remove the limited safeguards we have in place so no quality checks would exist at all.
5. Remake it. Delete what you don’t like…
I think this is an emergency call for the EU to fund future Pubmed indexing.
Things to do now
– let https://dnschecker.org/#A/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov do the job
– run standard searches “transgender diversity” and “women equal opportunities” for comparison to March 3, 2025
Update 3.3.2025
With the help of chatGPT, the log files at zonemaster.net and hacker news, the most likely scenario is now a misconfigured firewall upfront of the 3 NIH name server.
Can also confirm that the search for “transgender” at nih.gov is redirected to the search page.
Research has become a game of publication and not of science
This is quote from Gelman and King in the Chronicle
The publication process in social science is broken. Articles in prestigious journals use flawed data, employ questionable research practices, and reach illogical conclusions. Sometimes doubts over research become public, such as in the case of honesty scholar Francesca Gino, but most of the time research malpractice goes unacknowledged and uncorrected. Yet scholars know it is there, hiding below the surface, leading to frustration and cynicism. Research “has become a game of publication and not science,” as one professor wrote in response to a survey on research practices.
They want a “replay review” like in professional sports.
Once a publication receives a specified number of citations, it would receive an independent review. These reviews would then be published in full, along with author responses, so that readers have additional guidance on how to interpret the initial publication.
It is an interesting idea – basically a mandatory PubPeer review…
Science communication is less about presenting facts but about showing how we learned to know what we know
Is “Pro life” in reality only “Pro birth”?
A new paper in JAMA, distributed by Reuters and discussed at Bluesky has sparked a lot of interest showing a higher than expected infant mortality in states after adoption of abortion bans with observed 6.26 vs expected 5.93 per 1000 live births.
The reasons are not fully clear while methodological artifacts can be largely excluded
The results are consistent with clinician and media reports documenting denial of terminations for non viable pregnancies … The increase in infant mortality rate due to non congenital causes is less straight forward and warrants further investigation. One possibility is that these increases may result from the disproportionate impact of abortion bans on already disadvantaged populations, who are at higher risk of infant mortality, or from delays in receiving timely medical interventions.
The online discussion includes
– political and racial Implications as many users argue that this outcome was a foreseeable consequence of the Dobbs decision, with some claiming it aligns with systemic racial discrimination.
– criticism of “Pro-Life” sance. Many commenters criticize the anti-abortion movement, stating that its real goal was not to protect life but to exert control over marginalized populations.
– There are concerns about women’s healthcare: Some responses emphasize that these bans exacerbate existing disparities in maternal and infant health, particularly for Black women.
_ Responses range from outrage and frustration to calls for political action against policymakers responsible for the bans.
Not mentioned in the paper: Maternal death rate according to sepsis increased in Texas( Texas provided most observations in the new JAMA paper).
Source 23/2/25 https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-sepsis-maternal-mortality-analysis In the two earlier years, there were 79 maternal hospital deaths. In the two most recent, there were 120.
The scientific literature is an essential ocean of knowledge, in which floats an alarming amount of junk
It is now exactly 30 years and 15 days since “The scandal of poor medical research”
When I tell friends outside medicine that many papers published in medical journals are misleading because of methodological weaknesses they are rightly shocked. Huge sums of money are spent annually on research that is seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation. Errors are so varied that a whole book on the topic,7 valuable as it is, is not comprehensive
In 2025 we are talking not about one but dozen books. You can now find a peer-reviewed article to support almost any opinion, effectively proving it to be “true” in your view—whether you are a climate change denier, an anti-vaxxer or an advocate for tobacco smoke.
This phenomenon mirrors the way people interpret religious texts, such as the Bible, to justify vastly different beliefs. Just as proponents of the prosperity gospel find scriptural backing for wealth accumulation, Franciscans draw upon the same text to support their vow of poverty. Or the recently disputed ordo amoris (family is important but migrants can be deported) which is stark contrast to the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Back to science and The Atlantic article by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky from where the ocean metaphor originates
… While stating truthfully that the work originated in a peer-reviewed, academic publication, reveals an awkward fact: The scientific literature is an essential ocean of knowledge, in which floats an alarming amount of junk. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but the trash cannot be identified without special knowledge and equipment. And although this problem is long-standing, until the past decade or so, no one with both the necessary expertise and the power to intervene has been inclined to help.
https://bsky.app/profile/alala55.bsky.social/post/3lhya4k3zls2p