Christmas聽is coming, and so are the cheesy seasonal science stories. For most of the year, the BMJ publishes some of the most important medical research conducted today. But at the end of the year, it turns to what it calls 鈥渓ight-hearted fare and satire鈥澛犫�� also known as silly tabloid fodder.
The work, while 鈥渞eal鈥� according to the BMJ, has at times been impossible to test or based on fictional characters and traits. The journal has previously published a paper looking at whether the and why .
Sure, it is all a bit of fun. But not everyone is in on the joke 鈥� and in an era of fake news, maybe it is time for a聽rethink. The BMJ tells journalists reporting its papers, including these daft ones, to 鈥減lease remember to credit the BMJ 鈥� this assures your audience it is from a reputable source鈥�. And indeed, this silly science often receives straight-faced coverage from influential media outlets. What鈥檚 more, once it is archived in scientific databases, these papers get cited like any other. They are even used as the basis for future studies. After all, why wouldn鈥檛 you take the BMJ seriously?
Advertisement
Maryam Ronagh and Lawrence Souder at Drexel University in Philadelphia have criticised the scientific impact one of these papers has had. A few years ago, they of . It purported to find out whether retroactively praying for a group of people who had blood infections years ago was associated with better outcomes for those people in the past. Clearly, this is impossible.
The author concluded that 鈥渢his intervention is cost effective, probably has no adverse effects, and should be considered for clinical practice鈥�.
Influential papers?
So far, so funny. But Ronagh and Souder found that since publication, the paper has been repeatedly cited by other researchers 鈥� and not as a joke. It has been referenced, for example, in a , a thorough analysis of existing research that influences medical practice.
Putting such problems aside, the joke is starting to wear thin. One paper this year complains that the children鈥檚 TV programme Peppa Pig gives UK parents . Another looks at whether , by assessing how many people aged around 60 had said that they were both proud and had a fall in the recent past. Ha ha.
We are also being treated to a paper on 鈥溾��. The author of the paper complains he is 鈥渢ired of being accused of overreacting鈥�.
He cites studies that suggest female mice and women have stronger immune responses to viruses than males, and that men are more likely to聽die from the flu. He concludes that men may experience worse flu symptoms than women, and so should lie on a couch watching TV and being assisted when they are ill.
If this is meant to be a joke, it鈥檚 not a聽very good one. And how might it be read in the future? Months or years down the line, devoid of the context of聽Christmas, who is to say this paper won鈥檛 be cited seriously? Could it influence the study of flu? Or our understanding of sex differences in health, which have been confounded by bias and sexism for decades? Maybe it is time for journals to leave the bad jokes to Christmas crackers.
