Bad, Bad Leroy Brown

Apologies to Jim Croce, I am referring to Springer

What is the definition of a predatory journal? However it is defined, one particular esteemed journal Nature, published by Springer, is a self-appointed slayer of such bad, bad journals. Here is a recent example of this activity.

One possible definition of a predatory journal might be one that turns a blind eye to science in order to promote publication of a paper with a specific agenda. The covid tyranny is awash with examples of such papers and one publisher, Springer, reigns supreme in their publication and promotion.

My musing today highlights another very recent example of such a paper in a journal published by Springer. I came across this paper through my daily alert of all things aluminium/aluminum, as you do. I was immediately intrigued. Research documenting the absorption of aluminium into the blood in healthy women taking antacids. You probably know that most effective antacid preparations are aluminium salts. Their efficacy stems from aluminium’s salts being amphoteric, this means that they can act as both an acid and a base and as such this property helps to maintain an optimal gut pH. All good so far except, of course, eating aluminium is bad, really bad. Take a look at what happened to the dentist, a regular consumer of antacids, in Bert Ehgartner’s film, The Age of Aluminium.

The paper in discussion is published in the Springer journal Advances in Therapy . Sounds authoritative doesn’t it. Should be good science on an important subject. A quick read through of the abstract and red flags were flying everywhere. The healthy volunteers were eating about 1g of aluminium salt but not even 1/1000th of this was entering their bloodstream. Wow, really?

As an active scientist you are more or less expected to participate in a process known as peer review. This involves journals sending you manuscripts of submitted papers and you are expected to review the manuscript and return your opinion to the journal. Essentially providing an opinion on whether a manuscript should be published, revised or rejected. In my time I have reviewed hundreds if not thousands of manuscripts for many different journals. I have also used this experience to provide guidance to others on the process of peer review. For primary research the first step in the review process is to look at the methodology. If the methods used are inappropriate or have not been described in sufficient detail there is no point in reviewing the results. First and foremost you have to be absolutely confident that any data reported in a manuscript are soundly based, you have to be able to believe they have been obtained legitimately even if their message might surprise you.

So, what do we find when we look at the methodology used by Castillo et al. in this antacid paper. The method chosen to measure aluminium in blood plasma is ICP-MS, an acceptable method. However, this is where the good news ends abruptly.

I spent the majority of my time as a scientist perfecting the measurement of aluminium and in particular aluminium in human body tissues. It is by no means a trivial procedure, take for example our seminal study on aluminium in human brain tissue. Castillo et al. provide no further information on how they measured aluminium in blood plasma beyond telling us the method used, ICP-MS. I suspect that there is a very good reason for this.

If we delve a little deeper into the background of this so-called research we find a plethora of the aforementioned red flags. First, the study is wholly funded by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the antacid used in the study. Second, at least half of the authors of the study work for the pharmaceutical company and the other half are all financially supported by the pharmaceutical company. Third, the journal offers no information on which editor handled the manuscript or anything relating to peer review of the manuscript.

If the manuscript was peer reviewed then the handling editor sent it to either tame or incompetent reviewers. I suspect the former since if it had been sent to anyone with any experience of measuring aluminium in human tissues it would have been rejected outright. The authors of this ‘study’, I use the term lightly, and by authors I mean the pharmaceutical company that makes the antacid in question, knew they were on to a sure thing. I have not looked but it would not come as a surprise to find that the pharmaceutical company regularly advertises its products in Springer journals. Most pharmaceutical companies do, just take a cursory look at any recent hard copy of Nature.

The problem for us all is that this pharmaceutical company will use this paper in Advances in Therapy to inform potential users of their antacid that the product is wholly safe. These are the lies that perpetrate our minds both literally and metaphorically. Literally in that those women who continue to use this antacid product are predisposing themselves to the terrible tyranny of Alzheimer's disease.

Bad, bad Springer is the worst of all the predatory publishers. Peer-reviewed published science is still the best we have to inform ourselves of the world about us. But, we have to be wary of papers such as that by Castillo et al. and do what we can to educate ourselves as to what constitutes good, reliable, peer-reviewed published science. That is not easy, even for me.