La fiabilidad de las revistas científicas

Abstract

Possibly, the publication of research articles in scientific journals has been the most important means for disseminating knowledge. Researchers which publish in these journals belong to a sector which has been idealized by society and held above suspicion. However, a few years ago the absolute reliability of all scientific information has begun to be questioned. Two 2006 publications are highly relevant: The editors note withdrawing the clonation articles published by Hwang in Science (1), and the book «The Trouble with Medical Journals» by Richard Smith (2), former editor of the British Medical Journal. The fraudulent articles of the Korean scientist caused an uproar in the world of science and paved the way for a debate about the reliability of articles published in high impact journals. An impossible to answer question arose: How many of the published studies are fraudulent or simply dishonest? Clearly, the need to publish has increased either due to the pressure to produce results, competition, desire for fame or understanding science as a business (3). In the case of Spain, scientific acknowledgements and academic contests, almost exclusively based on the impact index, have given rise to an impactitis epidemic which has gradually turned into an impactoma. For many scientists, the ability to research and at the same time make a living depends on their results being published in prestigious journals. In turn, as pointed out by Smith (4), scientific journals and pharmaceutical companies have become difficult bedfellows. We must also emphasize the importance of the media for its contribution to influencing behavior, turning partial studies in definitive discoveries or raising some scientists (sometimes with political interests too) to the level of scientific prophets or superstars. It seems a proven fact that it is impossible to avoid fraud in science. Moreover, it probably is very simple because, of the thousands of results provided each year by scientific journals, only great discoveries are verified as for truthfulness. The peer review system is useful for improving methodologies, clarifying the wording or discarding irrelevant work but never for verifying the truthfulness of the proposals. Scientists are assumed to be honest (3). Committees set up for detecting fraud are proof that fraud exists, even though these committees can focus only on a minority of cases of greater relevance. In the current situation, it is essential for scientific literary production to be impregnated with a critical mentality. As for scientific journals, they should prioritize facilitating and stimulating debate and discrepancies about the articles they publish.