Facebook versus the BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong
BMJ 2022; 376 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o95 (Published 19 January 2022) Cite this as: BMJ 2022;376:o95
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor
The specific facts within the BMJ article are not refuted by Facebook and its fact checking contractors. So it is bizarre twisted logic to flag the BMJ article as misleading because it is being misused by anti-vaccination groups.
If one were to follow this twisted paternalistic logic, one can argue in favour of law enforcement agencies curtailing Facebook services such as Whatsapp because their encryption features are being misused by Terrorists, Paedophiles and Drug dealers.
I hope Facebook realises that wrongful censoring of well regarded, academically rigorous, independent sources such as BMJ would only add fuel to the conspiracy theories raging in the anti-vaccination groups.
Competing interests: I have received all three doses of the Pfizer vaccine as recommended by NHS in UK.
Dear Editor,
Like many BMJ readers I was concerned by the issues raised in your report regarding potential COVID vaccine trial misconduct. However, as a reasercher and academic with a particular interest in research integrity, I went one step further and wrote a secondary commentary article [1], for a publisher that only recruits academics to author their articles. I thought your investigation was significant enough to receive wider attention.
Previous articles I have written, for instance regarding facemasks [2], have received 300,000 plus views and been shared widely both online and in the traditional media. Given the importance of the topic of vaccine trial misconduct, I figured there would be significant interest, and indeed was waiting for the main news publishers to pick up the story. However, I was subsequently surprised to find very few tweets and facebook shares - resulting in ten fold lower readership (currently 31,000 as of 20th Jan 2022).
Fact checking is of course extremely important. Likewies it is perplexing how much nonsense is written about vaccinations - a healthcare intervention that saves more lives than almost any other. Given the importance of vaccine up take for overcoming the COVID pandemic, it is not suprising that many publishers, including social media, are trying to be responsible when it comes to negative stories about vaccines.
However, science and medicine is built on trust. Academic and medical communities must be robust, and be seen to be robust, with our own fact checking and quality processes. When misconduct occurs - and it inevitably will - we must investigate and report it so that harms can be mitigated and lessons learned. Here academic publishers can and must play a key role, both retracting papers if needed and reporting on bad science as the BMJ has done in this particular case, and as I likewise attempted to do.
It is therefore a very worrying turn of events if, in trying to support science, social media fact checkers end up undermining the academic quality control process. Yes it is a difficult balancing act, but at the same time surely fact checkers should be able to recognise the difference between Joe Bloggs writing a random social media comment, and an article published in an established professional journal like the BMJ, or written by academics with a track record researching the subject at stake?
This is an important topic that probably deserves a conference or colloquium - maybe the BMJ can take the lead again?
[1] https://theconversation.com/vaccine-trial-misconduct-allegation-could-it...
[2] https://theconversation.com/does-your-homemade-mask-work-142675
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Facebook versus the BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong
Dear Editor,
It seems to be obvious that the “independent” fact checkers are not really independent when Facebook uses third party organizations to fact check content. It can be expected that these organizations are paid by Facebook for their work which may have a major impact on the result of the fact check.
In addition, “fact checkers” should always be identifiable with their full names, their affiliations and their qualification as it is common practice in science when discussing different views in public. I consider it also to be essential that fact checkers publish any potential conflict of interest. How can I be sure that the person is not partly paid by Pfizer or owns Pfizer shares that may influence the outcome of the fact check?
Competing interests: No competing interests