The problem nowadays is that there are so many publications that you can pretty much publish ANYTHING. If you don't believe me, a skeptic blogger recently
published a complete bogus paper, in THREE different journals, based on midichlorians - yes, the ones from The Force in Star Wars. He even authored them as Dr. Lucas McGeorge and Dr Annette Kin
The publication quoted in the Economist appeared in PUBLIC HEALTH PANORAMA. So, how do we know how that journal ranks in the scientific world? A good place to start is ranking sites such as
EIGENfactor or
SJR. So how does it rank? Well... It doesn't. Searching for that name returns no result.
So why hasn't this study been published in a reputable journal? Well I'm not an expert in this particular field, but even a cursory look at the paper reveals serious problems. For example what they describe as "Study A" is based on 14% of BAE146 pilots having filled in a health questionnaire (no randomisation, not control group, etc). For those who reported long term health effects, the paper provide a list of ailments and their occurrences. It pretty much reads "ailment A: 1 case; ailment B: 1 case; ailment C: 1 case" etc. So what you have a long list of different health effects that has been clumped together to form a hypothesised "syndrome". I could go on, but you get the idea.
I also looked at the publication list of the author's first paper and the pattern of publishing in very minor journals is clear.
I am not a manager, engine manufacturer employee, etc. I am your average line pilot. With a decent scientific background. Does journal ranking mean everything? No. Does the very poor quality of the study, IMHO, mean that no crew or passenger has ever been affected by fumes? No. But if you're going to worry the paying public and air crews, please back it up with sound scientific data.