Jan 30/23: Skidmore paper investigated by Springer

One of the most well-read papers in history of Altmetric after one week of publication

As previously described, the Skidmore paper was a landmark, in that it produced an estimate of the number of US fatalities potentially caused by covid vaccines. What made this remarkable was the fact that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was by no means the first high-profile estimate, Mr. Steve Kirsch having produced a similar estimate almost a year ago.

As of January 30, per Altmetrics, the paper has reached a very high level of public attention, ranking in the top one percent of the top one percent of all papers reviewed by Altmetrics. This appears to come primarily from Twitter. The site further notes that ten news agencies have reported on the study. News coverage is primarily negative, such as the UK’s Daily Mail’s report that Springer Nature is investigating the paper, and comparing it to Imperial College’s modelling report that concluded millions of lives were saved by covid vaccines.

There is a persistent problem of “echo chambers” regarding covid research, which is in evidence here. The Dail Mail helpfully illustrates the problem: Imperial College and Skidmore reach opposite conclusions about covid vaccines. Therefore, one of them (or perhaps both) must be wrong. Depending upon which echo chamber an individual favours, they will discount one study, or the other. Normally, scientific discourse would proceed via a third study, and a fourth, which would provide yet another datapoint. Clearly, the question of covid vaccine societal benefit is complex.