pmoseman
Bluelighter
This study was published through PLUS ONE, which provides a way to accelerate the publication process. I am not sure about this study. It is possible that it was not even reviewed by an outside source before publication. Krebs and Johansen, being prominent researchers, may have simply reviewed it themselves, in accord with the rules of this publication. (link in article)
http://svpow.com/2013/05/17/dear-plos-one-time-to-sort-out-your-multiple-review-tracks/
The study lacks information and the conclusions do not seem entirely justified.
From the PLUS ONE publication criteria:
"Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls and replication. Sample sizes must be large enough to produce robust results, where applicable. Methods and reagents must be described in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce the experiments described."
The problem with the level of detail provided is an inability to replicate their findings. Nowhere in the report, or in any of their references, can you find the risk factors for mental health that they used in their calculations. How is it even remotely possible to replicate the results?
I wish I could look at this report and use the results to develop a deeper understanding of nature. It is aggravating that people consider this science. I think science should be more careful and balanced. If people look at this as justificaiton to begin or continue using illicit drugs, then it is not science. It is merely political rhetoric.
Although it made me feel better (I was able to stop focusing too much on the idea that psychedelics had caused me some mental anguish and I was able to let go of some tension that I had held on to for a number of years), the media headlines, which people tend to remember, indicate the study has proven psychedelics reduce mental health issues. This is strictly absurd.
Should anyone concerned with science even publish something like this?
It seems to undermine the entire process.
http://svpow.com/2013/05/17/dear-plos-one-time-to-sort-out-your-multiple-review-tracks/
The study lacks information and the conclusions do not seem entirely justified.
From the PLUS ONE publication criteria:
"Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls and replication. Sample sizes must be large enough to produce robust results, where applicable. Methods and reagents must be described in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce the experiments described."
The problem with the level of detail provided is an inability to replicate their findings. Nowhere in the report, or in any of their references, can you find the risk factors for mental health that they used in their calculations. How is it even remotely possible to replicate the results?
I wish I could look at this report and use the results to develop a deeper understanding of nature. It is aggravating that people consider this science. I think science should be more careful and balanced. If people look at this as justificaiton to begin or continue using illicit drugs, then it is not science. It is merely political rhetoric.
Although it made me feel better (I was able to stop focusing too much on the idea that psychedelics had caused me some mental anguish and I was able to let go of some tension that I had held on to for a number of years), the media headlines, which people tend to remember, indicate the study has proven psychedelics reduce mental health issues. This is strictly absurd.
Should anyone concerned with science even publish something like this?
It seems to undermine the entire process.
