I only stumbled a bit about this: “Of course, there may be another source for the dramatic difference between the two groups, which has not yet been identified. This would usually be the responsibility of the publishing journal to expose. In this case, the publication has been peer-reviewed and published in a small journal specializing in vitamin D. The publisher is Elsevier, which also publishes the Lancet and Cell.”
Many people nowadays are stating that peer-review processes are problematic, but IMHO they are still a really important standard. Yet I do not find it a compelling argument to say that the publisher also publishes Lancet and Cell. Yes, Elsevier usually does not publish predatory crank journals. But concluding from the publisher being Elsevier to the quality of one article in a “small journal specializing in vitamin D” is quite a jump.
I really like the Vitamin-D inquiries made.
I only stumbled a bit about this: “Of course, there may be another source for the dramatic difference between the two groups, which has not yet been identified. This would usually be the responsibility of the publishing journal to expose. In this case, the publication has been peer-reviewed and published in a small journal specializing in vitamin D. The publisher is Elsevier, which also publishes the Lancet and Cell.”
Many people nowadays are stating that peer-review processes are problematic, but IMHO they are still a really important standard. Yet I do not find it a compelling argument to say that the publisher also publishes Lancet and Cell. Yes, Elsevier usually does not publish predatory crank journals. But concluding from the publisher being Elsevier to the quality of one article in a “small journal specializing in vitamin D” is quite a jump.
Related:
Covid 9/10: Vitamin D—LessWrong