Fake Journals, Bad Science, and the Confusion They Create
It seems like more people than ever are interested in scientific research right now, which I truly think is a great thing. But without training in research methods and scientific publishing, it can be difficult to separate credible science from misleading or low-quality studies. This confusion is often exploited by predatory journals, which are publications designed to look like real scientific journals while bypassing quality control mechanisms, like the rigorous peer-review process that ensures research quality.
And without training, those “studies” can easily be mistaken for legitimate science.
Take Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the likely head of HHS, and someone with no formal science or research background. He claims to champion “scientific integrity” and demands “radical transparency” in research. Yet, in his recent confirmation hearing, when presented with decades of peer-reviewed studies showing no link between vaccines and autism, he deflected, insisting, “There are other studies out there” and then went on to discuss a “study” that was conveniently “published” by an anti-vaccine group just a week before his hearing in a journal that is not a real scientific publication at all, but a WordPress blog masquerading as one.
The journal, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, claims to be “peer-reviewed” (adding to the confusion), but lacks the hallmarks of a legitimate scientific publication. It isn’t indexed in major scientific databases (such as PubMed or Scopus), has no credible editorial board, and does not follow traditional quality control measures. And their publication that Kennedy cited (and wellness influencers indiscriminately spread) was so methodologically flawed that it could never have passed real peer review or been published in a reputable scientific journal.
Yet he used it as his evidence against decades of credible scientific research.
This is why scientific literacy is so important. Without a clear understanding of how research is vetted, published, and evaluated, it’s easy to mistake a self-published blog post for real science, and for bad actors to exploit that confusion.
Instead of breaking down this specific study’s flaws, since others have done that here and here, I want to take this opportunity to explain the basics of the scientific research process and what makes a study credible. The more we understand these principles, the better we can recognize quality research and identify when figures like RFK Jr. use junk science to mislead the public or spread propaganda.
What Makes a Study Credible?
Ok. I’m pulling out my old research methods lecture for this.
Not all studies are created equal. Good science is built on rigorous research methods, independent review, and transparency. Here are the hallmarks of a credible, high-quality scientific study:
Peer Review: The study is published in a real, peer-reviewed journal where multiple independent experts review the study to check for errors, bias, and methodological flaws before publication. The peer review is usually blinded (the author doesn’t know who is reviewing the paper).
Methodology Transparency: The study clearly explains how the research was conducted so that others can replicate the results. If a study cannot be repeated by others, its findings lose credibility.
Adequate Sample Size: A study with too few participants can produce misleading or statistically insignificant results. Good studies ensure they have a large enough sample size to make meaningful conclusions.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Legitimate research discloses funding sources to ensure that potential biases are transparent.
Reproducibility: Science isn’t about one study proving something. It’s about findings being repeated and confirmed by other researchers. A single paper claiming to overturn decades of research? Be skeptical.
High-Impact Publication: Real scientific journals are indexed in reputable databases (like PubMed and Scopus) and are ranked based on impact factor, which measures how frequently other scientists cite research from that journal. A study appearing in Nature or JAMA carries significantly more weight than one published on a self-hosted blog.
Proper Controls & Avoidance of Bias: Studies should control for confounding factors (things that might skew results) and be designed to minimize bias through well-established research methods.
Post-Publication Scrutiny: Real science doesn’t stop at publication. Other scientists critique, replicate, and refine findings after it’s published. If a study can’t stand up to this scrutiny, its credibility fades.
Funding Scientific Research
Scientific research is expensive and requires funding. Running experiments, analyzing data, and publishing findings all take time, resources, and expertise. The money to support research has to come from somewhere, and generally, it comes from one of three main sources:
Federal government grants (e.g., NIH, NSF) – ~50-60% of funding
Industry funding (e.g., pharmaceutical, biotech, tech companies) – ~30-40%
Nonprofits and private organizations (e.g., American Cancer Society) – <10%
Each type of funding plays an essential role in advancing medical and scientific knowledge.
Federal Government Grants
The majority of scientific funding comes from federal agencies like the NIH and NSF. These grants typically support basic research, which is scientific exploration that expands knowledge but may not have an immediate commercial application.
Some examples include cancer research aimed at understanding tumor growth, climate science and environmental research, and epidemiological studies on disease trends and public health.
Government funding allows researchers to explore foundational questions without needing a financial return on investment. However, federal funding is highly competitive and often insufficient to support research that requires large-scale trials (like Phase III clinical trials) or rapid technological development.
Industry Funding
Private industry, especially pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device companies, plays a critical role in funding applied research, particularly when it comes to developing new treatments and medical breakthroughs.
Some examples include clinical trials for new cancer treatments, development of life-saving medications, and engineering medical devices like insulin pumps and pacemakers.
Industry funding is often essential to bring new drugs and medical treatments to market. While basic research lays the groundwork, pharmaceutical companies provide the billions of dollars needed for large-scale clinical trials, FDA approval, and distribution. Without private investment, many drugs would never make it to the public, leaving people without lifesaving treatments.
However, industry funding can raise concerns about bias. To address this, real scientific research includes checks and balances to minimize conflicts of interest (more on that below).
Nonprofits and Private Foundations
A smaller percentage of research funding comes from charitable organizations and private foundations, like the American Cancer Society and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. These organizations fill in funding gaps where federal and industry money may be lacking, especially for public health, rare diseases, and early-stage research.
Some examples include cancer prevention studies, global disease eradication efforts, and rare disease research that lacks commercial interest.
While nonprofit funding is important, it makes up less than 10% of total research dollars, meaning it cannot replace government and industry investment.
Preventing Funding Bias
Concerns about industry-funded research are understandable. When corporations (especially pharmaceutical or biotech companies) fund studies, it’s natural to wonder whether their financial interests could influence the results. After all, companies have a lot at stake when developing new treatments, and history has shown that financial incentives can sometimes lead to conflicts of interest.
This is why scientific research has built-in safeguards to minimize bias and ensure credibility, no matter where the funding comes from. While no system is perfect, the scientific community relies on rigorous processes to ensure that research meets the highest standards.
Some of those safeguards include:
Peer review: Before a study can be published in a respected scientific journal, it must go through peer review, where independent experts in the field scrutinize the research for flaws, biases, or conflicts of interest (more on that below).
Disclosure requirements: Reputable journals and institutions require full transparency about who funded the research and whether the authors have any financial ties to the company. This allows other scientists and the public to assess potential conflicts of interest.
Replication and scrutiny: Science is self-correcting. Even if a single study produces industry-favorable results, those findings must be replicated by independent researchers before they are widely accepted. If the results can’t be replicated, the study loses credibility.
Regulatory oversight: For drug trials, agencies like the FDA and WHO require strict adherence to ethical and scientific guidelines. Researchers must follow Good Clinical Practice (GCP) standards, and all trial data must be reported transparently, even if the results are unfavorable.
Publicly available data: In many cases, clinical trial data must be registered in public databases (like ClinicalTrials.gov) so that researchers, regulators, and the public can review all findings. This includes negative or inconclusive results.
Independent studies: Many medical breakthroughs funded by industry are also tested by independent scientists, who conduct their own studies to confirm or challenge the findings., which helps filter out biased or misleading conclusions.
Ultimately, industry funding doesn’t automatically make research flawed, just as government or nonprofit funding doesn’t guarantee neutrality. What matters is the rigor of the study, transparency of methods, and independent verification.
Funding matters a lot more when an article that has not gone through this process or these safeguards is “published” on a Wordpress blog, bypassing all quality controls.
What is Peer Review, and Why Does It Matter?
Peer review is one of the most important safeguards in scientific publishing, acting as quality control before research is accepted into a reputable journal. Before a study is published, it must go through evaluation by independent experts (usually three or more reviewers) in the same field. These reviewers assess the study’s methodology, data analysis, and conclusions, looking for flaws, errors, or potential biases.
The process is typically blinded, meaning the author doesn’t know who is reviewing the scientific paper. After reviewing, the authors provide detailed feedback and one of three recommendations: accept, request revisions, or reject the study outright.
Revisions are almost always required, even for high-quality studies. It’s rare for a paper to be accepted without changes, and many go through multiple rounds of revisions before final approval. If a study has serious methodological issues or unsupported conclusions, it is rejected.
This system isn’t perfect and flawed studies sometimes get published. But peer review remains one of the best tools to filter out poor-quality research. Over time, additional scrutiny and replication by other scientists determine whether findings hold up, reinforcing the credibility of strong studies while discrediting weak ones.
What Makes a Scientific Journal Credible?
Rigorous peer review happens when publishing in a legitimate scientific journal. Legitimate scientific journals follow strict quality control measures to ensure that only rigorous, well-vetted research is published. In contrast, low-quality or predatory journals lack oversight, peer review, and editorial integrity, allowing flawed or misleading studies to slip through.
What makes a scientific journal credible?
An established editorial board composed of recognized experts in the field.
A strict peer review process, where independent reviewers assess each study for methodological soundness, accuracy, and relevance before it is accepted for publication.
Indexing in major scientific databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.
Articles that are cited in other legitimate journals.
Affiliations with reputable scientific organizations, such as JAMA or PNAS. Many, but not all, have this.
Transparency about funding, conflicts of interest, and publication fees.
Reputable journals maintain exceptionally high standards, rejecting the vast majority of submissions. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has an estimated 90% rejection rate, meaning only the strongest, most well-supported studies make it through.
Why This Matters
Why should we care if a flawed study is shared widely or cited in a confirmation hearing?
Because scientific literacy matters.
When wellness influencers, politicians, or activists push low-quality or fraudulent research, it undermines public trust in real science. Worse, it allows misinformation to spread, leading to dangerous consequences.
Figures like RFK Jr. don’t actually care about better science. Instead, they weaponize doubt to dismantle trust in scientific consensus. This tactic isn't real skepticism - it's a strategy to dismiss existing evidence while appearing reasonable, sow confusion and distrust in real research, and elevate flawed, cherry-picked studies.
True skepticism means evaluating all the evidence, not just the studies that fit a pre-determined narrative.
Expertise Matters
I genuinely appreciate that people are taking an interest in scientific research right now. However, it's important to recognize that assessing scientific research is a skill set. Many of us spent years developing this expertise, often through frustration and even tears, when our advisors pointed out flaws in our analysis or interpretation. Becoming proficient in the research process takes time, training, and a deep understanding of study design, statistics, and bias.
Interpreting research without that foundation can lead to misrepresenting data, cherry-picking results, and drawing unsupported conclusions. Science isn’t about finding a study to confirm a belief (like this blog journal appears to be doing). It’s about critically analyzing all the evidence in context.
This is why expertise matters. Just as we wouldn’t expect an untrained person to perform surgery or build an airplane, we shouldn’t assume that reading a few studies (or worse, blog posts) equips someone to properly evaluate complex scientific questions.
And to be honest, it’s pretty annoying (aside from dangerous) when an anti-vaccine group publishes a methodologically flawed study that completely contradicts decades of research on their Wordpress Blog, and then wellness influencers who constantly are yelling about funding bias and “corrupt science” share it widely as proof of something, and the likely head of HHS uses it as an evidence-based argument.