The BMJ: Difference between revisions

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
(Add info on the peer review of the PACE reanalysis paper)
m (→‎Peer review controversy: Correct spelling)
Line 2: Line 2:


==Peer review controversy==
==Peer review controversy==
An early version of the PACE reanalysis paper by [[Caroline 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>.
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:
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:

Revision as of 11:41, June 27, 2018

The BMJ (originally called the British Medical Journal) is a weekly peer-reviewed medical journal.

Peer review controversy[edit | edit source]

An early version of the PACE reanalysis paper by Carolyn Wilshire et al was submitted to The BMJ and received two peer reviews,[1] one which recommended publication, the other being described by Prof James Coyne as "patently unprofessional"[2].

This second review can be viewed in its entirety both on Coyne's blog and on the Science for ME forum.[1] 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."

The reanalysis was later submitted to and published by BMC Psychology.[3]

Alleged bias[edit | edit source]

Ellen Goudsmit wrote a paper detailing her accusation that the British Medical Journal had displayed bias towards the psychological model of ME/CFS.[4]

Notable articles[edit | edit source]

Notable podcasts[edit | edit source]

Online presence[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]