Title of thread should read:
Blogpost by James Coyne PhD (renegade research psychologist) complaining about a peer reviewer's review
Title of blog I'm highlighting:
James Coyne is an interesting researcher/writer (see bio below).
Here is his introduction to the post:
The issue regarding peer review is largely covered at the start of the piece so for those with limited mental stamina/time for reading, that might be all you have the time for.
I was never really conscious of how much power peer-reviewers have until I submitted a paper myself.
I could see that it could be a problem in the ME/CFS field with so many professionals wedded to the rehabilitation/graded activity model for the illness.
The rest of the post is about screening cancer patients for distress. I would need to read more to take a definite stance but it is is interesting.
Perhaps, although I'm not sure, the same arguments could have relevance with ME/CFS clinics where patients might be screened for distress. Anyway, my main reason to post it was to highlight the power peer reviewers have.
------------
Here's his bio from the end of the piece:
Blogpost by James Coyne PhD (renegade research psychologist) complaining about a peer reviewer's review
Title of blog I'm highlighting:
"I am holding my revised manuscript hostage until the editor forwards my complaint to a rogue reviewer."
http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/...or-forwards-my-complaint-to-a-rogue-reviewer/
James Coyne is an interesting researcher/writer (see bio below).
Here is his introduction to the post:
This blog post started as a reply to an editor who had rendered a revise and resubmit decision on my invited article based on a biased review. I realized the dilemma I faced was a common one, but unlike many authors, I am sufficiently advanced in my career to take the risk of responding publicly, rather than just simply cursing to myself and making the changes requested by the rogue reviewer. Many readers will resonate with the issues I identify, even if they do not yet feel safe enough making such a fuss. Readers who are interested in the politics and professional intrigue of promoting screening cancer patients for distress might also like reading my specific responses to the reviewer. I end with an interesting analogy, which is probably the best part of the blog.
The issue regarding peer review is largely covered at the start of the piece so for those with limited mental stamina/time for reading, that might be all you have the time for.
I was never really conscious of how much power peer-reviewers have until I submitted a paper myself.
I could see that it could be a problem in the ME/CFS field with so many professionals wedded to the rehabilitation/graded activity model for the illness.
The rest of the post is about screening cancer patients for distress. I would need to read more to take a definite stance but it is is interesting.
Perhaps, although I'm not sure, the same arguments could have relevance with ME/CFS clinics where patients might be screened for distress. Anyway, my main reason to post it was to highlight the power peer reviewers have.
------------
Here's his bio from the end of the piece:
About James Coyne PhD
James C. Coyne, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry, Director, Behavioral Oncology Research of the Abramson Cancer Center, and a Senior Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics, all at the Perelman Medical School of University of Pennsylvania. Additionally, he is Professor of Health Psychology, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Previously, he served on the faculties of University of California, Berkeley and University of Michigan School of Medicine. Dr. Coyne has been elected a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, Society of Behavioral Medicine, and Academy of Behavioral Medicine. His critical commentaries have challenged whether psychosocial intervention extends the survival of cancer patients, whether recommended and mandated depression programs improve patient outcomes, and whether meta analyses of behavioral medicine commissioned by professional organizations are valid and credible. A 2008 systematic review and meta-analysis in JAMA of screening for depression among cardiovascular patients was designated by BMJ as one of the eight top papers of the year. He is known for presenting and defending controversial positions and for promoting reform of the clinical and health psychology journals. He is the co-author or editor of a number of books including the 2009 Screening for Depression in Clinical Settings: An Evidence-Based Review (Oxford University Press) with Alex Mitchell.