At Padiracinnovation, we face a paradox: despite the deluge of scientific publications on ALS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's disease, academic and industry scientists seem unable to develop effective drugs.
In fact, the incentive for academic scientists appears to be publishing a large volume of work, as this is nearly their only path to career advancement. Industry scientists publish infrequently, but their work primarily serves to promote their company to potential investors.
How can we differentiate the wheat from the chaff? There are several telltale signs:
single author
authors who publish more than two papers per year
publishing outside of prominent journals, such as in conferences
articles based on specific intuition without testing other hypotheses
articles concerning a specific drug without explaining the rationale for its initial selection
articles making bold claims based on queries to a public database without conducting further research to validate the results and without considering confounding factors
articles making outrageous claims, such as "breakthrough in disease X."
In our field, additional indicators exist: a strong publication should report results from human trials, as animal models often prove to be completely ineffective.
Consequently, we find few publications to discuss, even as popular science news organisations report daily on significant advances made toward new drugs.