AHS17

The medical literature is currently subject to extensive criticism, nowhere more than in nutrition. While failure in The medical literature is currently subject to extensive criticism, nowhere more than in nutrition. While the widely invoked misuse of statistics contributes, major cause rests with failure to adhere to accepted ideas such as Bradford Hill’s principles and to accept questionable, if not fundamentally foolish standards — intention-to-treat, meta-analysis and statistically significant but biologically meaningless significance. Blame falls on editors whose failure to recognize controversial subjects and to obtain reviewers from both sides constitutes de facto (or intentional) bias. Evidence of bias comes from PubPeer, Letters-to-editors and social media from people with experience and credentials. Fixing things requires: Recognition that the model of (physical) scientific literature is no longer appropriate. More controversial, more tentative, medical reports require post-publication review or periods of tentative acceptance subject to continued public comment. External respected, neutral organizations to codify good practice and to adjudicate conflicts.