It is my (unpopular I suspect) opinion that the contents of medical or other academic journals is not intended for consumption by the “interested public” as much as I can understand the desire to do so.
That’s not the same as saying that the interested public shouldn’t be able to learn about these things, but I do think they will often need assistance from those who are trained to read and discriminate this content.
And yes, journals should also do better, and peer review should be high quality and paid (you get, ultimately, what you pay for…)
As a clinician-academic who published in The Lancet during medical school, I think this goes a bit far. Unfortunately student doctors are encouraged to publish whether or not they actually have an interest in research… but that shouldn’t discount the work of those who are genuinely engaged.
But certainly we should always approach the literature critically, including the author list, journal of publication and its peer-review practices, and the methods.
A patient being drunk wouldn’t make it any harder for me to anaesthetise them. But if they’re drunk they wouldn’t legally be able to confirm they consent to the anaesthetic immediately prior.
While I understand why others are wary, I am also excited about the good that this could do for OSS projects.
I know I've struggled in the past to give money to projects that make me a profit. The third party tools are hardly brilliant, and maintainers have to set them up, and look after them.
That’s not the same as saying that the interested public shouldn’t be able to learn about these things, but I do think they will often need assistance from those who are trained to read and discriminate this content.
And yes, journals should also do better, and peer review should be high quality and paid (you get, ultimately, what you pay for…)