Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
The BMJ
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Peer review controversy== An early version of the PACE reanalysis paper by [[Carolyn Wilshire]] et al was submitted to The BMJ and received two peer reviews,<ref name="Post on Science for ME">https://www.s4me.info/threads/michael-sharpe-skewered-by-johnthejack-on-twitter.3464/page-88#post-84643</ref> one which recommended publication, the other being described by Prof [[James Coyne]] as "patently unprofessional"<ref>https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/patients-writing-about-their-health-condition-were-abused-by-a-peer-reviewer-and-silenced-by-bmj/</ref>. This second review can be viewed in its entirety both on Coyne's blog and on the [[Science for ME]] forum.<ref name="Post on Science for ME" /> As part of his blog on the review, Coyne highlights a number of noteworthy points in it, including that: *The reviewer notes that the paper is billed as a collaboration between patients and scientists, but questions whether any of the authors qualify as “clinicians” or “scientists.” *The reviewer expresses doubts that the patients meet criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome. *The reviewer reiterates the doubt the patients meet criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome and suggests that they were erroneously self-diagnosed. *The reviewer suggests that the authors were erroneously self-diagnosed and went doctor-shopping until they found agreement. *After earlier mentioning that he had not obtained the author’s published review, he questions whether it is a major review. Additionally a comment on Coyne's blog on the review from the blogger Neuroskeptic says, "This is a bizarre, arrogant and unprofessional review. I say this as someone who has called PACE “solid” and “not ‘bad science'”. Wherever you stand on the issues here, this review is just shocking. Shame on the reviewer." Professor [[Jonathan Edwards]], posting on the [[Science for ME]] forums, called for an apology from the BMJ, stating that he felt that the "reviewer and the journal have made complete fools of themselves".<ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/bmj-peer-review-of-wilshire-et-al-re-analysis-of-pace-paper.4737/page-2#post-85800</ref> The reanalysis was later submitted to and published by BMC Psychology.<ref>https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-018-0218-3</ref>
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs