This post was earlier cross-posted at Leonid Schneider's site, hence the unfrivolous tone. The version there is improved by Leonid's editing and explanation of the backstory. Overture
Academic journals are bombarded with bad manuscripts, with contents that are plagiarised or fabricated or simply incompetent. The authors could be inflating their publication statistics, or employed at a 'paper-mill' to churn out bespoke papers for the
nominal authors, or manufacturing the impression of scientific support for a political / commercial cause they promote. It is inevitable that some of these efforts, which would ideally have remained in a file-drawer oubliette or been consigned to cleansing fire, will slip past the peer-review gate-keepers and into print.
In the author-funded open-access paradigm of scholarly publication, editors and journal management have a conflict of interest, and
may feel encouraged to relax their vigilance to maximise the income. This is a special concern for journals from the '
Frontiers' stable, which have a
multilevel-marketing aspect: reviewers (and authors) are urged to nominate 'Research Topics', with themselves as editors, while soliciting submissions from friends and colleagues. This publisher also follows a model of 'review iteration' where it is difficult for peer-reviewers
to reject a submission outright, however dire it might be... if a manuscript is
not eventually published, it is because the authors' persistence and patience were exhausted before the reviewers'.
So our host Leonid has had occasion to point and laugh at some of the more
egregious products of the
Frontiers editorial / review system. On their own, of course, these '
bread' anecdotes do not
prove that the publisher is any friendlier to these embarrassments than anyone else in the Open Access world, but they are a necessary counterbalance to the Impact-Factor- and Citation-Rate-brandishing self-congratulations one encounters on the
Frontiers website.
Here I propose to marshal a few more examples, arranged around the themes of 'autism' and 'vaccines'.
Frontiers has a special openness to new ideas in this research area (in parallel with Henry Markram's Manhattan-Project-scale goal of simulating brain function, neuron by neuron, on a supercomputer). Back in 2007, the premiere issue of
Frontiers in Neuroscience was a vehicle for the Markrams' ambitious though not-entirely-mainstream "Intense World" framing, which relied on a valproic-acid rat model of autism, and tied cortical microcolumn organisation together with either hypoactivity or hyperactivity (or maybe both) of the amygdala. See also
2009,
2010,
2015, etc.
For fairness I include some egregious cases from other publishers, and even from outside the OA domain. Some examples have been the subjects of past
Riddled posts, so I can make the job easier by resorting to the fine scholarly tradition of self-citation. If some passages are worded awkwardly or incoherently, this just shows that the original phrasing was a model of literary elegance before I reluctantly rearranged the words to avoid self-
plagiarism (which would be wrong).
Act 1
My first examples are only peripheral to the central theme. They were solicited by Canadian PhD Lucija Tomljenovic and her mentor Christopher Shaw, within a Research Topic of
Aluminum Toxicity and Human Disease where the focus was the putative neurotoxicity of low-level exposure to aluminium compounds (especially as an adjuvant in vaccines). To be scrupulously fair, and "according to the malicious calculations of a certain critic less versed in literature than in arithmetic", the word 'autism' hardly appears. Nevertheless, these papers were intended as ammunition for the vaccines-cause-autism cause, and were
weaponised accordingly by a readership of antivaccine activists who understood 'human disease' as meaning 'autism'.
Aluminum is now well established as a general toxin, including neurotoxin, but its role in human disease has been downplayed in the past. This is largely due to some very incorrect assumptions about the role of aluminum in human disease. [...]
None of the above assertions are even remotely true as an abundance of recent studies now attest. The proposed series will review the literature and put aluminum's role in diseases in humans and animals into perspective.
The odd thing is that at some point between 2016 and now, the Research Topic was
dissolved, leaving the papers still published but stripped of their unifying rubric. I do not recall that this management intervention was ever explained.
Then
Now.
One paper is a
Review. It contains little new material, existing mainly to promote the authors' earlier reports, devoid of new results or new interpretations; and to promote an otherwise-unknown medical condition, "macrophagic myofasciitis"... this is fine in blogging and science journalism, but were I reviewing the ms., I might have asked for
some novel content.
But rather than me, in an unusual editorial selection of reviewers it was peer-reviewed by the
soliciting editor (another reviewer, Mark Burns, moonlights as "
Specialty Topic Editor for Neurodegeneration").
In a further erosion of content novelty, Tomljenovic was editing
the same manuscript -- at the same time -- to become Chapter 27 in a 37-chapter compilation of "Different ways vaccines will make you sick"
published by WileyOnline. This was an unexpected plot twist!
The two versions have different Introduction paragraphs, and the WileyOnline chapter has only three authors. But otherwise...
One reason to characterise the compilation (and the
Frontiers paper) as 'antivax' is that in parallel with their publication, the group CMSRI circulated a
Summary document containing the main points of each chapter in bullet-point form, for the convenience of activists eager to use those claims as ammunition without actually buying the book. It is natural to wonder whether CMSRI
subsidised the production of "Vaccines and Autoimmunity" (Shoenfeld, Agmon-Levin & Tomljenovic, eds.; 2015).
![]()
![]()
Anyway, more about CMSRI below. Coming back to this contentious "MMF" syndrome: the same research team provided the Special Topic with a
second paper ("
Clinical features in patients with long-lasting macrophagic myofasciitis"), presenting their evidence to support its clinical reality as a
sequela of vaccination.
Inquiring minds in PubPeer comment-threads questioned the
quality of that evidence, and compared it with
the same evidence as already published in
2014 (in French) and in
2012.
There was puzzlement how a collection of cases could grow from 457 to 583 with only one change in the sample's demographics and incidence of various symptoms.
This was interesting, too:
A
third paper in the Special Topic is worth checking for the title alone. It would be more at home on a conspiracy / Truther site like
InfoWars or
AboveTopSecret, or cyclostyled and stapled to power-poles.
It may be that Tomljenovic could only find one peer-reviewer willing to sign off on it, so she ended up recruiting herself for the second review.
I will not go into the other papers of the Special Topic, except to say that the
rigor of their peer-review process should come as little surprise:
Act 2
Now without delving too deeply into the politics of autism and antivax advocacy, a little bit of background is helpful at this point. Readers of the "
Rise and Fall" post may dimly recall the Children's Medical Safety Research Institute (
CMSRI) as funders of a quickly-retracted study on aluminium, vaccines and autism (in mice). Doctors Exley, Shaw and Gherardi (and Shoenfeld) are prominent on the Institute's
Scientific Advisory Board, enjoy its hospitality
at Caribbean get-togethers, and benefit from its financial generosity. The CMSRI is essentially the
operational branch of the '
Dwoskin Family Foundation', an antivax lobby-group... here the "Medical Safety" part of the name is code for "banning vaccines". For
reasons unknown, foundation head Claire Dwoskin had become convinced that there are no neuroatypical or challenged children, only "vaccine damage"; also, that the appropriate response to some families' plight is a worldwide ban on disease-prevention programs.
“Vaccines are a holocaust of poison on our children’s brains and immune systems.”
Other families share the same opinion: convinced that (a) autism has a simple, single cause (which mainstream science is keeping secret), and (b) by the same token there is a single, simple
cure for autism (similarly suppressed for Big Science's financial gain). Naturally, a ecosystem of con-men sprouted up, offering that cure... or more accurately, a
series of cures (if the first five cures don't work, never despair, there is always a sixth in the scammocopoeia). Around the world, a range of regular scamborees allow desperate yet optimistic parents to hear the latest etiologies and treatments directly from the grifters... the largest of these being AutismOne, a kind of fraudster trade fair or
medical-malpractice Woodstock.
We should stipulate in the interests of fairness that regular attendees at AutismOne are not all mercenary mountebanks. Some are fervently committed to helping parents and normalising autistic children, and convinced by the strength of that fervour that whatever treatment they're currently administering
must bring some improvement, at least until next year. But still...
Bleach enemas!
Esoteric parasitology!
Yes, the Dwoskin Foundation does
help bankroll these charlatan charivaris.
A certain Jeffrey Bradstreet epitomises this whole
milieu. When life gives you lemons, make silver linings; and there is a silk purse within every dark cloud; and when life gave Bradstreet an autistic son, he turned that challenge into a career of serial fraud. From treating autism with
exorcism, he pimped
secretin prescriptions until that bubble burst, progressing to
mercury chelation and
intravenous immunoglobulin and
hyperbaric oxygen tanks and
transcranial magnetic stimulation and (inevitably)
Ukrainian stem-cell quackery. Bradstreet was an AutismOne rockstar and anyone collaborating on any of his short-term scams comes under suspicion as well.¹ ² ³
Finally he gravitated to the GcMAF grift, before killing himself after the FBI turned up on his doorstep with difficult questions.
This all brings us to another
Frontiers Masterpiece. My earlier critique of it
drew upon comments from
a PubPeer thread. It is a
tour-de-farce of fractal stupidity and incompetence in every detail of cranial and cortical anatomy, notable for the authors'
failure to read even
the sources they cited.
![]()
The novelty of the method was to dispense with a dedicated transcranial scanner (high-powered enough to send ultrasound pulses through the skull and return a signal from the cerebral interior) and use instead a standard LA523 soft-tissue scanner that was on hand,
manipulating scans in Photoshop to achieve the desired appearance. Suffice to say that the technique did not catch on, with no subsequent applications.... though there were precedents, in the form of
otherpapers by main author Ruggiero's team. What inspires me to touch on one of these (not in
Frontiers, but an Italian embryology journal) is the
extent of its plagiarism.
The authors of these papers were under the impression that tissue
density is what reflects ultrasound, rather than
abrupt changes in density, causing them to misread the
outside surface of each subject's temporal bone (smeared out by the instrument's poor resolution) as the
thickness of the bone. Naturally the rest of the Maps-of-Mars of meningeal and sub-arachnoidal and cortical layers are equally meaningless artefact pareidolia, wildly variant from the accepted ranges (and probably incompatible with life), but for the authors and reviewers, this was a
discovery. It may be that the reviewers lacked knowledge of the field and accepted Ruggiero's claim of expertise in radiography.
If
true, the result reported here would be a major breakthrough: a simple, non-invasive physical marker for diagnosing autism. Thus the second reviewer (Dario Siniscalco), concerned that it might go unrecognised, contributed a
Commentary paper to
Frontiers and praised it beyond moderation. For unknown reasons that brief Commentary required
four reviewers.
Three of them shared Siniscalco's and Bradstreet's noble goal of subsidising predatory journals.
- Dario Siniscalco, Anna Sapone, Alessandra Cirillo, Catia Giordano, Sabatino Maione, Nicola Antonucci (2012)
- Dario Siniscalco, James Jeffrey Bradstreet, Alessandra Cirillo and Nicola Antonucci (2014)
- Dario Siniscalco, James Jeffrey Bradstreet, Nataliia Sych, Nicola Antonucci (2014)
- Dario Siniscalco, James Jeffrey Bradstreet, Nataliia Sych, and Nicola Antonucci (2013)
- Dario Siniscalco, Alessandra Cirillo, James Jeffrey Bradstreet and Nicola Antonucci (2013)
- Dario Siniscalco, Anna Sapone, ..., Jeffrey Bradstreet, Sabatino Maione, Nicola Antonucci (2013)
- James Jeffrey Bradstreet, Nataliia Sych, Nicola Antonucci, Mariya Klunnik, Olena Ivankova, Irina Matyashchuk, Mariya Demchuk, Dario Siniscalco (2014)
In the Commentary's
Conflict of Interest section,
"The reviewer Dr. Sapone declares that, despite having collaborated with the authors, the review process was handled objectively"... leaving us to reach our own conclusions about the objectivity of the reviewers who did
not volunteer any such disclaimer.
However,
"The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest". Siniscalco's construal skills may need work, as his collaborations with Marco Ruggiero (and with his reviewer Antonucci) in commercial GcMAF-related autism-curing activities are well-documented: for instance, in
a presentation at the 2nd Noakes / Ruggiero GcMAF-fest (Dubai 2013), and
another at the 2017
Fulda Integrative Medicine Scamference:
I mention
Dottori Siniscalco and Antonucci not only to question the rigor of
Frontiers peer-reviewing, but also because
they pimp for
stem-cellfraudsters, referring desperate families to
clinics in Ukraine. This gives me an opportunity to mention this
egregious bolus of quackery:
The final entry in the Bradstreet Files is a
posthumous Commentary, congratulating the authors of a recent rediscovery of cerebral lymphatic drainage, while trying to claim precedence for it.
While not actually
wrong in any obvious way, new content is absent, blurring the boundary between a science journal and a paid-press-release advertising service like PRWeb.
Entr'acte
These authors explicitly ruled out searching for a link between vaccines and autism (although the third author
does believe that they're linked). Antivaxxers don't care and
heralded the paper anyway as
smoking-gun proof of the link's existence.
Sadly,
the paper's only value is as a demonstration of the importance of multiple-comparison correction after a statistical fishing expedition. The authors compare the diagnosis of
seven neurological conditions (and two physical-injury controls) against
six vaccines, and total, with
three different time delays. They found about as many significant associations (
p< 0.05) as they could expect from random chance.
Perhaps none of the reviewers were cognizant of statistics. They seem to have been recruited from the Editor's circle of fellow-psychiatrists.
Act 3
We close with another non-
Frontiers paper. Dr Anthony Mawson conducted an
on-line opinion poll on the link between vaccination and childhood ill-health. It was billed as a 'survey', with home-schooling parents invited to report on the health and vaccination status of their children or imaginary friends (
here's a copy), but no evidence for these reports or proof of existence was needed. Perhaps more crucially, antivaccine True Believers were selectively targeted to participate, by the choice of a home-school target group (also by the circulation
around a true-believer website of news of and a link to the anonymous poll). In effect it was an invitation to submit health reports in line with one's belief system, and in consequence there is not a single datum of value.
The paper -- in a trash 'journal' from the
parasitical publisher OAText, who are several sub-barrels down
beneath the bottom of the barrel -- is relevant partly because the Dwoskin Foundation funded Mawson's research. The entirely predictable results (vaccine denialists report that unvaccinated kids are healthier!!) were to be released at AutismOne in May 2017, with
fanfare and
ballyhoo, as the main draw-card and flagship Scientific Finding. In case you were wondering, no, "Ballyhoo" is
not a small town in Ireland.
It appears, though, that the lovable rogues running
OAText found out about this, realised that the paper was worth more to the author than the quotidian resume-fluffing piffle they usually charge for, and increased the publication fee --
depublishing the valuable hostage until
the ransom was paid. Note that this is
my own reconstruction of events, while the Believers
have their own interpretation, involving sabotage and campaigns of slander.
The Mawson Manuscript is
also relevant because it was originally accepted for publication in
Frontiers, progressing as far as the
Abstract going on line. In this case, the Editors-in-Chief recognised that peer-review had failed, overruled the editors, and
retracted it (though "retraction" is an ugly word and some prefer "withdrew"). And you know how that story finished... with a mad scramble at CMSRI to rehome the manuscript in time for AutismOne... hindered by the little problem that by then, helpful antivaxxers had obtained a complete copy and placed it on-line, putting the manuscript in the public domain, so that only a fraudulent parasite would pretend to publish it. Hence the
OAText debacle.
And there was a wailing and a mighty gnashing of teeth across the land, blaming the retraction (or withdrawal if you prefer) on the machinations and coordinated bullying of a vast troll conspiracy. Just saying, if pretend-independent-journalist
Celeste McGovern ever tires of being the CMSRI staff writer, there is a job waiting for her in the White House as the next press secretary. The "coordinated bullying" narrative does not survive contact with the time-line, in which
just two tweets pointing and laughing at
Frontiers -- one from
Leonid, one from
Tara Smith (@
aetiology) -- were enough to alert the Editors-in-Chief to their blunder.
The situation is complicated by a
second Mawson discovery, that developmental disorders in premature babies are not caused by prematurity
per se, but rather by vaccinations (based on
49 reports of prematurity within the 666 survey responses,
12 of them showing developmental delay,
I am not making this up). This enjoyed the same drawcard status at AutismOne, then the same roller-coaster ride at
OAText, but it was never accepted by
Frontiers. Am I alone, by the way, in thinking that "The Mawson Manuscript" would be a good title for a spy thriller, in the "Quiller Memorandum" / "Eiger Sanction" / "Bourne Identity" genre?
So kudos to the
Frontiers management! The organisation
is capable of doing the right thing and expunging blunders from the literature. It only remains to continue cleaning shop, and address the papers identified above. It may be that one of the goals when the
Frontiers fleet of journals was launched was to bring progress in research in autism... instead, Henry and Karmila Markram created a tool that vaccine denialists and con-men are using to divert research funding into thoroughly-beaten dead-horse avenues.
Just trying to finish on a positive note here.
Curtain Calls
1. Bradstreet (at right), three since-convicted felons, and others at the 1st GcMAF Scamfest (Frankfurt, 2013).
2. Let's give a big hand to regular AutismOne speakers
DottoriDario Siniscalco and
Nicola Antonucci!
The in vitro GcMAF effects on endocannabinoid system transcriptionomics, receptor formation, and cell activity of autism-derived macrophages (Siniscalco, Bradstreet, Cirillo & Antonucci, 2014)
Possible use of Trichuris suis ova in autism spectrum disorders therapy (Siniscalco & Antonucci, 2013). Autism is caused by lack of tapeworms.
The impact of neuroimmune alterations in autism spectrum disorder (2015).
3. Let's give a big hand to Doctors
Dan Rossignol and
Richard Frye!
Hyperbaric oxygen treatment in autism spectrum disorders (Rossignol, Bradstreet, ... Frye, 2012).
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy may improve symptoms in autistic children (2006).
The Use of Medications Approved for Alzheimer’s Disease in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review (2014).
Treatments for Biomedical Abnormalities Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder (2014).