Malinformation – an emergent problem for medical journals and scientific communication

Background: Malinformation is the presentation of curated facts in manner that presents a false narrative and/or creates a misleading impression by leaving out important context. Unlike its better-known relatives, misinformation and disinformation, malinformation depends not on false information, but rather on employing cherry-picked facts and deliberate omissions to mislead. While medical journals are the vanguards of new biomedical research, results and commentary published in them can be misrepresented to produce insidious malinformation, with distortions introduced by third parties interpreting the research, authors themselves, or both.Objective: To investigate the proliferation and interpretation of medical malinformation. Design: An altmetric and sentiment analysis of an article on a COVID-19 vaccine with the highest engagement score ever published in a medical journal. Setting: Worldwide.Participants: Media outlets and social media users worldwide. Measurements: Quantification of the context, spread, adoption, and interpretation of a prominent recent case study of medical malinformation.Results: This analysis suggests the selective and leading presentation made this an especially powerful piece of malinformation, in large part because the imprimatur of a respected medical journal gave it a veneer of legitimacy. Sentiment analysis suggests it has been chiefly amplified by antivaccine activists and conspiracy theorists worldwide, with negative ramifications for vaccine acceptance. The appearance of malinformation in a medical journal can adversely affect public understanding of medical science.Conclusion: To maintain public trust in medical science, authors, editors, and reviewers need be aware of the potential for malinformation and decontextualized misappropriation of bona fide results.