{"id":43783,"date":"2018-12-31T09:57:44","date_gmt":"2018-12-31T08:57:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?p=43783"},"modified":"2019-03-05T16:35:01","modified_gmt":"2019-03-05T15:35:01","slug":"richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/","title":{"rendered":"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2014\/12\/richard_smith_2014.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft wp-image-33037\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2014\/12\/richard_smith_2014-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"richard_smith_2014\" width=\"128\" height=\"128\" \/><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">In 1995 Stephen Lock, once editor of <em>The <\/em><\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">BMJ <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">and effectively the first person in Britain to be seriously concerned about research misconduct, called for an end of amateurism in the editing of scientific journals.\u00a0<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bmj.com\/content\/310\/6994\/1547.full\">He made his plea<\/a> after reviewing a report on the gross failures of the editors of the <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> in publishing two fraudulent papers which had the editor of the journal as an author on one and an assistant editor as an author on both. But more than 20 years later a report in the <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Toronto Star<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u00a0appears to show that amateur editing is flourishing as ever.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thestar.com\/news\/investigations\/2018\/12\/21\/inside-the-flawed-world-of-medical-publishing-that-allowed-a-lie-in-a-paper-coauthored-by-dr-gideon-koren-to-pollute-the-scientific-record.html\">The report<\/a> in the <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Toronto Star<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> describes how a review of more than 1400 papers by Gideon Koren, one of Canada\u2019s most prolific scientific authors, \u201creveals the inability\u2014and unwillingness\u2014of journals and research institutions to preserve the integrity of the scientific record.\u201d <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Many journals had been notified of problems in the papers by Koren, but most of them had done nothing. The article quotes Ivan Oransky, founder of <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Retraction Watch<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, describe \u2018\u201cthe vaunted self-correction mechanism of science\u201d as one that is \u201cheld together by spit and bubble gum.\u201d\u2019 <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Retraction Watch<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, which reports almost every day on malfeasance in science, has brought to global prominence what Lock knew a quarter of a century ago&#8211;that research misconduct is common, poorly acknowledged, and inadequately managed.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Journals are only part of the weak system for preventing and responding to research misconduct, but they are the place that new scientific articles are sent. Peer review is, we know, poor at detecting such misconduct\u2014because it works on trust: if authors say that there are 200 patients in a study then that is simply accepted, nobody asks for signatures or consent forms (which could anyway be forged). Similarly if authors say they have no conflicts of interest their statements are just accepted. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">But sometimes fraud is so obvious that it is detected before publication, in which case journals have the unenviable task of acting. Many do nothing but simply reject the article, which is a failure of duty of care. Journals have neither the legal legitimacy nor the due process needed to conduct a proper inquiry into fraud, but they should not do nothing. They have to notify the employing organisation, usually a university, who do have legal legitimacy to investigate and should have due process. One common complication is that authors come from multiple institutions, making it easy for them to pass the buck. In the old days, as Lock explained in his editorial, it was common for everything to be hushed up, but in the age of transparency and social media that\u2019s become a high risk response. Nevertheless, many institutions do little or act very slowly. There is then an onus on editors to chase the employers, but many think that they have discharged their duty once they\u2019ve notified the employers. Editors do have the sanction of publishing their concerns and reporting that the institutions they have notified have failed to act. They should use that sanction when all else fails.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">What is much more straightforward for editors is to take action when notified by employers that they have concluded that there has been misconduct. The editors should go ahead and retract the article, explaining exactly why they have done so. But many do not do this<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. Sometimes they may not do so for fear that it will reflect badly on their journal, but they are completely wrong: all publications make mistakes (and, as I\u2019ve said, fraud is hard to detect), and good ones publish corrections and retractions, whereas poor ones publish few of either. It is not a problem to make a mistake, but it is to fail to correct it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">One of many odd things about scientific journals, which are at the heart of the scientific process, is that most of them are edited by amateurs. One day you are a cardiologist and professor of cardiology, the next day you\u2019re an editor as well. It would never work the other way round, with an editor becoming a cardiologist overnight.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Dealing effectively with the many forms of misconduct is one of the jobs of an editor. Employing professional rather than amateur editors may not mean an end to journals failing to deal effectively with fraud, but it would be a step in the right direction. And the editors don\u2019t need to be grand figures: indeed, humble editors with training and experience who follow protocols would be much more effective than the current grand figures with impressive academic backgrounds, but no editorial experience. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Unfortunately Lock, who is now 89, will have to wait longer for an end to amateurism in scientific publishing.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><em style=\"font-size: 1rem\"><strong>Richard Smith<\/strong>\u00a0was the editor of <\/em>The BMJ<em style=\"font-size: 1rem\"> until 2004.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In 1995 Stephen Lock, once editor of The BMJ and effectively the first person in Britain to be seriously concerned about research misconduct, called for an end of amateurism in [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p><a class=\"btn btn-secondary understrap-read-more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/\">More&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":38364,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[955],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-richard-smith"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals - The BMJ<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals - The BMJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In 1995 Stephen Lock, once editor of The BMJ and effectively the first person in Britain to be seriously concerned about research misconduct, called for an end of amateurism in [...]More...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The BMJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/bmjdotcom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-12-31T08:57:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-05T15:35:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/Richard-Smith.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"540\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"350\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"BMJ\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@bmj_latest\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@bmj_latest\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"BMJ\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"BMJ\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe\"},\"headline\":\"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-12-31T08:57:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-05T15:35:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":803,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/Richard-Smith.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Richard Smith\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/\",\"name\":\"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals - The BMJ\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/Richard-Smith.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-12-31T08:57:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-05T15:35:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/Richard-Smith.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/Richard-Smith.jpg\",\"width\":540,\"height\":350},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2018\\\/12\\\/31\\\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/\",\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"description\":\"Helping doctors make better decisions.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/05\\\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/05\\\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg\",\"width\":852,\"height\":568,\"caption\":\"The BMJ\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/bmjdotcom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/bmj_latest\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe\",\"name\":\"BMJ\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"BMJ\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals - The BMJ","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals - The BMJ","og_description":"In 1995 Stephen Lock, once editor of The BMJ and effectively the first person in Britain to be seriously concerned about research misconduct, called for an end of amateurism in [...]More...","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/","og_site_name":"The BMJ","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/bmjdotcom\/","article_published_time":"2018-12-31T08:57:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-05T15:35:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":540,"height":350,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/Richard-Smith.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"BMJ","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@bmj_latest","twitter_site":"@bmj_latest","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"BMJ","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/"},"author":{"name":"BMJ","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/person\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe"},"headline":"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals","datePublished":"2018-12-31T08:57:44+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-05T15:35:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/"},"wordCount":803,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/Richard-Smith.jpg","articleSection":["Richard Smith"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/","name":"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals - The BMJ","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/Richard-Smith.jpg","datePublished":"2018-12-31T08:57:44+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-05T15:35:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/Richard-Smith.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/Richard-Smith.jpg","width":540,"height":350},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/12\/31\/richard-smith-amateurism-still-flourishing-in-scientific-journals\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Richard Smith: Amateurism still flourishing in scientific journals"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/","name":"The BMJ","description":"Helping doctors make better decisions.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#organization","name":"The BMJ","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2018\/05\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2018\/05\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg","width":852,"height":568,"caption":"The BMJ"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/bmjdotcom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/bmj_latest"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/person\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe","name":"BMJ","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"BMJ"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43783\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/38364"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}