> Bee L is a good reflection of the issue because most of the discussion here is about facts, observations, how reliable they are, how that may or not apply, etc. Then we get to a few topics such as neonicotinoids; that's when the Publication Pollution Problem rears it's head.  I knew this was a growing issue, but had no idea it is so bad

Maybe you should have cited a few concrete examples. Some of us go to a great deal of effort to find research that is performed and presented by people with genuine integrity, like Jeff Pettis and Jody Johnson. For you to rail against science pollution without being specific lends nothing to the discussion. 

The original article states:

> publication pollution lessons the impact of legitimate science in the formation of public policy, undermining public health, weakening the overall value of legitimate publications in influencing policy, and creating opportunities for the continued power of crackpot views that corrode many areas of public life, such as vaccination, fluoridation, and the prevention and treatment of diseases, such as autism, AIDS, and cancer. (ref below)

We have taken great pains to expose "crackpot views" regarding all beekeeping science, from small cell theory to the Bee Apocalypse. From my point of view, there is a clear distinction between the genuine, the false, and the wacky. Perhaps it makes better sense to look at the specifics rather than paint the whole issue one color.

SEE:
Caplan, A. L. (2015, April). The Problem of Publication-Pollution Denialism. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 90, No. 4). Elsevier.   http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(15)00190-1/pdf

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html