Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines

2020 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream

HarmLow evidencePaper 768

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2020

Study typereview

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines Else K Nordhagen, Einar Flydal. Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines. Rev Environ Health. 2022 Jun 27. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2022-0037. Abstract In March 2020, ICNIRP (the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) published a set of guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). ICNIRP claims this publication's view on EMF and health, a view usually termed "the thermal-only paradigm", is consistent with current scientific understanding. We investigated the literature referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to assess if the variation in authors and research groups behind it meets the fundamental requirement of constituting a broad scientific base and thus a view consistent with current scientific understanding, a requirement that such an important set of guidelines is expected to satisfy. To assess if this requirement has been met, we investigated the span of authors and research groups of the referenced literature of the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines and annexes. Our analysis shows that ICNIRP 2020 itself, and in practice all its referenced supporting literature stem from a network of co-authors with just 17 researchers at its core, most of them affiliated with ICNIRP and/or the IEEE, and some of them being ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves. Moreover, literature reviews presented by ICNIRP 2020 as being from independent committees, are in fact products of this same informal network of collaborating authors, all committees having ICNIRP 2020 authors as members. This shows that the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not suited as the basis on which to set RF EMF exposure limits for the protection of human health. With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of research findings, and would therefore need a particularly solid scientific foundation. Our analysis demonstrates the contrary to be the case. Hence, the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines cannot offer a basis for good governance. Excerpts ... ICNIRP members are found to have conflicts of interest, as pointed out by e.g., [3]: “the Ethical Board at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden concluded already in 2008 that being a member of ICNIRP may be a conflict of interest that should be stated officially whenever a member from ICNIRP makes opinions on health risks from EMF (Karolinska Institute diary number: 3753-2008-609)”. An EU report [4] concluded in June 2020 that “for really independent scientific advice we cannot rely on ICNIRP”.... As is apparent from the debate on this issue, a majority of peer-reviewed papers support the opposing view, i.e., that sub-thermal RF EMFs have health effects [5]. Several athermal mechanisms have been identified [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and accepted as evidenced, if not proven.... All in all, ICNIRP 2020 has 158 unique references. Not all have been authored by the ICNIRP co-authorship network found in Pattern 1. We found that the network co-authored 78 of the referenced peer reviewed papers, seven of the literature reviews, and six ICNIRP publications, in total 91 documents. In addition to these 91 documents, there are 67 references to other documents. Of these 67 documents, only 15 are peer reviewed papers on RF EMF and health. The remaining 52 are documents with no direct relation to this topic. We termed these 52 “technical documents”, as they address topics such as WHO’s definition of “health” and other general terms used (three documents), thermal regulation (20 documents), contact currents and pain (five documents), technical documentation (three documents) and SAR-modelling and calculations (21 documents). We excluded these technical documents from further analyses (see Figure 1) .... Conclusions In the introduction we raised five questions relating to the authorship behind the referenced literature used to underpin the ICNIRP 2020 thermal-only view. Below we repeat the patterns found, answering these questions whilst adding some overarching conclusions. Pattern 1: ICNIRP affiliates and ICNIRP 2020 authors are heavily involved in literature referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to underpin it. Figure 2 shows the graph of the complete network of co-authorship relations found in the referenced literature in ICNIRP 2020 originating from the ICNIRP affiliates, displaying that ICNIRP affiliates are the most central nodes of the network, and seven of the most central nodes being ICNIRP 2020 authors. Pattern 4: a small and tight network of just 17 authors is behind all the literature used to underpin ICNIRP 2020. Of these 17, 10 were ICNIRP affiliates, of whom six were also authors of ICNIRP 2020. Five of these 17 were IEEE C95.1 2019 authors, two of whom were also ICNIRP 2020 authors. Pattern 2: ICNIRP 2020 authors are involved in all the literature reviews referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to underpin it. In addition to the ICNIRP 2020 authors, these committees are manned by several other ICNIRP affiliates. Pattern 3: All scientific papers used to underpin ICNIRP 2020 are from the same co-author network centered around ICNIRP affiliates. Only four papers were found to be used to underpin ICNIRP 2020 that were not linked to the ICNIRP co- authorship network. Of these four, a simple internet search revealed that two of them have authors who have co-authored several papers with ICNIRP affiliates and thus cannot be seen as independent from ICNIRP. The two last were misinterpreted to underpin ICNIRP 2020 or offered no scientifically sound support. Pattern 5: The spread of first authors gives a false impression of broad support. While there is a high variation of first authors, most of them not affiliated with ICNIRP/IEEE, a tight network of just 16 key authors, dominated by ICNIRP and IEEE affiliates, is involved in all the papers used to underpin ICNIRP 2020 (Pattern 4). Moreover, in the co-authorship network (Pattern 1) ICNIRP affiliates are found as central nodes, while most first authors are peripheral in the network. Intentionally or not, the domination of ICNIRP affiliated authorship is blurred by the practice of having many different non-affiliates as first authors. This conceals the fact that effectively all referenced papers used to support ICNIRP 2020 originate from a network of researchers completely dominated by ICNIRP affiliates and a few who are closely related. Pattern 6: All referenced papers not authored by the ICNIRP co-authorship network are either rejected, misinterpreted to underpin ICNIRP 2020, or offer no scientifically sound support. Our analysis shows that ICNIRP 2020 itself and, in practice, all its referenced supportive literature stem from a network of co-authors with just 17 researchers at its core, most of them affiliated with ICNIRP and/or the IEEE and with ICNIRP 2020 authors in prominent positions, where those who are not are still closely related. The overlaps between ICNIRP and the committees authoring the referenced literature reviews have been documented multiple times [4, 19, 20]. However, it was not anticipated that these ties would be so strong, that they include all committees behind the literature reviews, as well as the authorships of all the peer reviewed papers used to underpin ICNIRP 2020. Indeed, we would never have expected to find as few as 17 key authors as the smallest set of authors involved in all the literature used to underpin the ICNIRP 2020, and that they constitute a network heavily overlapping with the ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves. It was also not anticipated that the ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves would be represented in all committees. This means that the authors of ICNIRP 2020 are exclusively referring to themselves and their fellow network members as the basis for their own scientifically highly controversial recommendations. As well, it was highly unexpected to find that the WHO report [11] described in ICNIRP 2020 as “an in-depth review from the World Health Organization on radiofrequency EMF exposure and health” [2 p. 486] and presented in these words: “This independent review is the most comprehensive and thorough appraisal of the adverse effects of radiofrequency EMFs on health” [2 p. 517], is in fact a retracted draft where five out of six WHO core group members were ICNIRP affiliates, of whom three are among the authors of ICNIRP 2020. Such a claim and circularity of authorship is encroaching upon something very similar to fraud. From our findings we draw the conclusion that the referenced literature used in ICNIRP 2020 to underpin its guidelines is neither varied, nor independent or balanced, and is by no means “consistent with current scientific knowledge”, as claimed by ICNIRP 2020 [2 p. 484]. ICNIRP 2020 bases this claim within this small network only, a claim that runs contrary to the majority of biology-oriented researchers and publications within this research field. Hence, our review shows that the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements as to being built on a broad, solid and established knowledge base, uphold a view contrary to well established knowledge within the field, and therefore cannot offer a basis for good governance when setting RF exposure limits for the protection of human health. Open access paper: degruyter.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionharm

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

The authors report that ICNIRP 2020 and most of the literature cited to support it originate from a co-authorship network with 17 researchers at its core, many affiliated with ICNIRP and/or IEEE, including ICNIRP 2020 authors. They further report that literature reviews presented as independent committees included ICNIRP 2020 authors as members and were products of the same collaborating network. The paper concludes that ICNIRP 2020 fails fundamental scientific quality requirements and is not suited as a basis for setting RF EMF exposure limits for protection of human health.

Outcomes measured

Authorship/co-authorship patterns in literature cited by ICNIRP 2020 guidelines
Independence and breadth of scientific base underpinning ICNIRP 2020 guidelines
Potential conflicts of interest and self-referencing in guideline-supporting literature

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "publication_year": null,
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "policy/guidelines (ICNIRP 2020)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Authorship/co-authorship patterns in literature cited by ICNIRP 2020 guidelines",
    "Independence and breadth of scientific base underpinning ICNIRP 2020 guidelines",
    "Potential conflicts of interest and self-referencing in guideline-supporting literature"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The authors report that ICNIRP 2020 and most of the literature cited to support it originate from a co-authorship network with 17 researchers at its core, many affiliated with ICNIRP and/or IEEE, including ICNIRP 2020 authors. They further report that literature reviews presented as independent committees included ICNIRP 2020 authors as members and were products of the same collaborating network. The paper concludes that ICNIRP 2020 fails fundamental scientific quality requirements and is not suited as a basis for setting RF EMF exposure limits for protection of human health.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "stance": "concern",
  "stance_confidence": 0.83,
  "summary": "This paper analyzes the authorship and co-authorship network behind the literature referenced by the ICNIRP 2020 EMF exposure guidelines (100 kHz to 300 GHz). It reports that the guideline and most supporting references stem from a tight network of co-authors with 17 researchers at its core, many affiliated with ICNIRP and/or IEEE, including guideline authors. The authors conclude that this self-referencing structure indicates insufficient independence and breadth, arguing ICNIRP 2020 is not an appropriate basis for RF exposure limits or governance.",
  "key_points": [
    "The study examines the span of authors and research groups behind references cited in ICNIRP 2020 and its annexes.",
    "It reports that a co-authorship network with 17 core researchers underlies ICNIRP 2020 and most of its cited supporting literature.",
    "The authors state that 91 of 158 unique references were documents co-authored by the identified network (including peer-reviewed papers, literature reviews, and ICNIRP publications).",
    "They report that only 15 of the remaining references were peer-reviewed RF EMF and health papers, with many others categorized as technical documents and excluded from further analysis.",
    "The paper claims all literature reviews cited as independent committees included ICNIRP 2020 authors and were products of the same informal network.",
    "The authors argue that ICNIRP 2020’s ‘thermal-only’ paradigm contrasts with what they describe as the majority of research findings on sub-thermal effects.",
    "The paper concludes that ICNIRP 2020 does not meet fundamental scientific quality requirements and should not be used to set RF EMF exposure limits."
  ],
  "categories": [
    "Policy & Guidelines",
    "RF Exposure",
    "Research Integrity & Conflicts of Interest"
  ],
  "tags": [
    "ICNIRP 2020",
    "Radiation Protection Guidelines",
    "Self-Referencing",
    "Co-Authorship Network",
    "Conflicts Of Interest",
    "IEEE",
    "Thermal-Only Paradigm",
    "RF EMF Exposure Limits",
    "Governance",
    "Literature Review Methods"
  ],
  "keywords": [
    "ICNIRP",
    "2020 guidelines",
    "self-referencing",
    "co-authorship",
    "IEEE",
    "thermal-only paradigm",
    "radiofrequency EMF",
    "exposure limits",
    "conflict of interest",
    "governance"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "The paper focuses on ICNIRP 2020 guidelines, alleged self-referencing, and independence of committees linked to ICNIRP/WHO-related reviews."
    }
  ],
  "social": {
    "tweet": "Paper analyzes references behind ICNIRP 2020 EMF guidelines and reports most supporting literature comes from a tight co-authorship network (17 core researchers), many affiliated with ICNIRP/IEEE, including guideline authors—arguing this undermines independence and breadth.",
    "facebook": "This review examines the authorship network behind the literature cited in ICNIRP 2020 EMF exposure guidelines. It reports that most supporting references stem from a small co-author network closely linked to ICNIRP/IEEE, and argues this limits independence and scientific breadth.",
    "linkedin": "A review of the literature cited by ICNIRP 2020 reports that guideline-supporting references largely originate from a small, interconnected co-authorship network with substantial ICNIRP/IEEE affiliation, raising questions about independence and breadth of the evidence base used for RF exposure limits."
  }
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2022-0037
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library