Here are three rather solid ways to tell if you are looking at junk science, which will hold *99.9999999% of the time.
1. The study was carried out over a decade before it got published. This means one thing: the work has been rejected by more reputable journals than you can shake a fist at.
2. Almost every peer reviewed study referenced by the paper was published over a decade ago. This means one thing: the author is ignoring all of the later studies that contradict those he is citing.
3. The paper is published in a predatory open access journal. This means one thing: the study received minimal peer review in exchange for cash payment from the study’s authors.
1. The study, which apparently shows that breast cancer occurrence is much greater near nuclear power plants, was carried out in 2003, but only just published in a “peer reviewed” journal.
2. The study has 25 references. Only one of these references was published after 2000 in a supposedly peer reviewed journal.
3. The study was published in a journal with the Jacobs Publishers imprint, a well known predatory journal.
So, absolute dyed in the wool junk. And published in the Ecologist, which appears to just get crazier and crazier by the day.
*This is probably an under-estimate of the effectiveness of the rules.