Gary Ruskin, the chief junkyard dog of US Right To Know, an industry front group created by Organic Consumers Association to harass and intimidate scientists, has managed to pay-to-publish a Short Article which allows him to claim he has been in a peer-reviewed journal.
That has to be placed in context. In an open-access digital world, where thousands of predatory journals now exist which allow anyone to buy the right to claim they have been peer-reviewed, being peer-reviewed doesn’t mean what it used to mean.
How much did Ruskin pay to claim he was in a journal?
Here is the answer, from the journal itself (1):
The title he paid to publish is “How food companies influence evidence and opinion – straight from the horse’s mouth” and he is joined by three anti-science activists from the same department of the same school in New Zealand. They promise us “The results provide direct evidence” of their belief in vast right-wing pro-science corporate malfeasance but it turns out to be a conspiracy theory fabricated from just one email between two retired colleagues from Coca-Cola. (2) Instead of being an actual examination of industry influence of food science, it is what Katherine Rich in Food Navigator rightly dismissed as hyperbole spun “with all the fury and outrage of Watergate.”
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Retraction Watch Begins For Gary Ruskin Conspiracy Claims In Critical Public Health