Whoops! –
Oct. 17, 2020 – During peer review, the reviewers identified the important question of whether the myocardial infarctions occurred before or after the respondents initiated e‐cigarette use, and requested that the authors use additional data in the PATH codebook (age of first MI and age of first e‐cigarettes use) to address this concern. While the authors did provide some additional analysis, the reviewers and editors did not confirm that the authors had both understood and complied with the request prior to acceptance of the article for publication.
But it was published anyway and an industry received a body blow.
Some might say that this is how science is supposed to work, self correcting, following the data, etc. Right. But somehow mistakes in science these days always seem to cut in the same direction.
That may be because science journals have grown increasingly ideological. Nature has endorsed Joe Biden for president and promised to publish more political science — which isn’t “science” at all. The New England Journal of Medicine should change its name to the New Ideology Journal of Medicine. Science has endorsed “nature rights.” The list goes on and on.
Remember, the same editors that promote ideological agendas choose the articles to be sent out for peer review and the peer reviewers.
