This one really gets me… people don’t get that peer review is not a singular standard. Each pub. has its own peer review process. The Lancet’s & New England Journal of Medicine both have rigorous peer review processes. Is it a junk journal with weak peer review process?
I had someone lecture me on the dangers of vaccines and they held up a junk study as evidence. When I pointed this out. I got, it’s peer reviewed. I said did you check the source and quality of peer review. “It’s PubMed, dr’s rely on that.”
Yes, but you understand that PubMed is a database (library) right? It didn’t publish the article, that was X journal. You can just access the article through PubMed. Further, X Journal has a significant history of retractions and having peer review acceptance reversed.
Did you check out its peer reviewed process. Is it a rigorous process? Did you look at the study size? Is so small as to be irrelevant in drawing statistical conclusions? “But, but it’s peer reviewed.”
Please. Check sources people - it’s really not that hard. Do not give me a study of less than 70 people when I can point to a study of over a million.
I’m not a medical professional. Do I am not qualified to critique the science. But very simple research skills that everyone should learn in junior high should be used as a guide on credibility