Elsevier, in partnership with Economist Impact, surveyed researchers around the world to ask about their views on science and misinformation. The results, of course, are rather obvious and telling.
Which is strange because I believe Dr. McCollough had one of his articles about the myocarditis printed in Elsevier, although I may be mistaken. In any case it's a bit of a concern about the role these journals will have in targeting misinformation.
I would argue that it's rather inconsistent in how misinformation is defined and tends to fall along lines of whether it suits an individual or not. I tend to find it to be an ambiguous term that is easily remedied by stating what exactly the misinformation is rather than stating that misinformation exists.
I tries to ask some of my patients what “misinformation” means in their lexicon when they complained about the impending loss of democracy due to “misinformation”, but practicing in a solidly blue area I should have known better. I never received any coherent responses.
Their inconsistency is used to show they're unbiased. But they're selectively unbiased! Select papers that don't ruffle the waters too much. Confusion allows uncertainty. be skeptical. In some recent papers, researchers have read and analyzed the data it didn't validate the titles claim.
Publishers mostly captured by government desired narrative.
Which is strange because I believe Dr. McCollough had one of his articles about the myocarditis printed in Elsevier, although I may be mistaken. In any case it's a bit of a concern about the role these journals will have in targeting misinformation.
The “Science” is completely corrupt.
It's a serious issue when pontificating on the science comes before doing actual science.
Funny how “both sides” are so concerned about “misinformation” but have completely opposite definitions about what it means.
I would argue that it's rather inconsistent in how misinformation is defined and tends to fall along lines of whether it suits an individual or not. I tend to find it to be an ambiguous term that is easily remedied by stating what exactly the misinformation is rather than stating that misinformation exists.
I tries to ask some of my patients what “misinformation” means in their lexicon when they complained about the impending loss of democracy due to “misinformation”, but practicing in a solidly blue area I should have known better. I never received any coherent responses.
Interesting, thank you for looking at the organization behind the survey. Organizations and ngos can be so deceptive about their real intentions.
Their inconsistency is used to show they're unbiased. But they're selectively unbiased! Select papers that don't ruffle the waters too much. Confusion allows uncertainty. be skeptical. In some recent papers, researchers have read and analyzed the data it didn't validate the titles claim.