I agree, in ‘altie’ world one has to check everything. In my professional role I have got into the habit of checking references when I referee.

However, my biggest complaint is ususally the absence of appropriate references. To appropriate a term from Kuhn, “normal science” is an incremental process; it’s vital to set work in an appropriate context. In my experience an increasing number of authors fail to do this.

I do know that referencing is often far from perfect – even in serious disciplines or good journals. But honestly, if I were to referee a paper, I’d generally take the references on trust – unless I already knew the source or if it was very important to check exactly what the source says. This may be asking too much, but correct referencing seems just like correct spelling: a basic skill. Of course there will be the occasional typo (just check my posts!), but a referee should look at more important aspects than basic technical details.

Of course, having read quite a few papers on “fringe” topics… my experience is that THERE, checking the references is of cardinal importance. To sum it up: in alternative journals, concerning bad referencing, it’s “look and you shall find”. It doesn’t even take too much effort… In my own field, my limited experience tells me something else: there is the exceptional truely dishonest quotation, but mostly, some slight exagerations, a little bit of cherry picking… not the highest standards, just normal human character flaws…

Your comment is spot on; unfortunately it’s not just the ‘altie’ literature that shows a distinct lack of integrity with referencing.

I read a terrible example in a paper that I refereed for a major automotive engineering conference last year: the reference said the exact opposite of what the author said it said!

In one of your previous posts, you did some research about trials often cited that, apparently, prove homeopathy’s effectiveness. The results really are disheartening. Time and again, in alternative journals, you have to check the sources and references. Because more often than not, they don’t say what the author claims or implicates that they say.
One of the things that make wading through these articles so tedious…

The Lancet article by Shang et al. is a nice counter example: a quick search reveals the necessary information.

Perhaps, SOMEONE can finally tell us which were the 21 homeopathic trials and the 9 allopathic ones. Shang NEVER divulged, most likely because this review would show real benefits from homeopathic treatment. Isn’t anyone suspicious of “black box” comparison studies like this? Why are only the homeopaths complaining here about junk science? Hmmmm.

I’ve yet to see a critique of the Shang et al. meta-analysis that stands up to scrutiny, and I’ve been looking.