Blog post 4:

Enserink:
It definitely seems like the academic community needs to do more to crack down on shady publishing companies. I found it interesting that the degree of transparency on the journal's website about audience, scope, mission, etc was directly correlated to how legitimate that journal was.

Colquhoun:
The quote that Colquhoun referenced that researchers were pressured to publish 3 papers a year at one academic institution was pretty astounding to me. How would academia change if department heads told professors, "publish when something really important comes up in your research"? Colquhoun also brought up the phenomenon that popular periodicals can latch onto one isolated study (like the acupuncture study) regardless of whether that study is valid or reproducible.

Goldacre: I found it disturbing that pharmaceutical companies can find ways to distort the trial process itself , such as comparing the correct dosage of a new drug to a higher dosage of the old drug, then claiming that the new drug has fewer side effects. It was also surprising that a study as flawed as the fish-oil study (no control group!) could capture as much media attention as it did. Perhaps there isn't enough pressure on science reporters to carefully read the research before they make a claim about it.

After reading these and the last few articles (plus video), it's clear that authors in particular must be very careful in where they choose to publish. They need to consult Beall's list before submitting a paper to a lesser-known journal. As researchers, we have to not take everything at face value, and carefully sift through data.