Invest in ME Conference 12: First Class in Every Way
OverTheHills wraps up our series of articles on this year's 12th Invest in ME International Conference (IIMEC12) in London with some reflections on her experience as a patient attending the conference for the first time.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Coyne: Patients writing about their health condition, abused by a peer reviewer, silenced by BMJ

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by AndyPR, May 11, 2017.

  1. AndyPR

    AndyPR RIP PR :'(

    Follow up to the blog discussed here http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...-authors-who-were-abused-by-a-reviewer.51029/

    https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...bused-by-a-peer-reviewer-and-silenced-by-bmj/
     
  2. RogerBlack

    RogerBlack Senior Member

    Messages:
    857
    Likes:
    2,785

    To quote Coynes excellent summary of it
    Reviewer 1 was positive! And indeed raised additional problems with the original research leading to this analysis.

    The BMJ response was ""We note that the reviewers were more positive than the editors were about your paper, but ultimately did not persuade us that we should publish it.""


    I note in passing that I picked up a copy of
    "Coyne of the Realm on Becoming a Citizen Scientist" from
    https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/collections/frontpage
     
    Woolie, ScottTriGuy, MEMum and 3 others like this.
  3. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes:
    23,044
    Now I'm even more interested in the article by Wilshire et al.
     
    MEMum, Binkie4, Esther12 and 2 others like this.
  4. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Rebel without a biscuit

    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes:
    10,070
    I'm going to venture a guess that when all is said and done that the psychiatrists in the UK involved in and who have shared opinions on the PACE trial will simply dismiss this whole horrible debacle as 'we were never at any time engaged in studying the disease of all the PACE trial critics, we have always been studying chronic fatigue of unknown origin -- nothing has changed'.

    Except of course we know we have all the documentation that says otherwise.
     
    Wolfiness, Cheshire, Woolie and 7 others like this.
  5. Orla

    Orla Senior Member

    Messages:
    692
    Likes:
    1,415
    Ireland
    Is anyone else having trouble sharing this article on facebook? It keeps telling me it doesn't recognise the URL.
     
  6. AndyPR

    AndyPR RIP PR :'(

    Works for me. Have you gone through to the blog itself and taken the URL from there, to make sure you're getting the full URL?
     
  7. Orla

    Orla Senior Member

    Messages:
    692
    Likes:
    1,415
    Ireland
    Thanks Any, yes I have tried that. The picture comes up and everything but then it won't post it when I hit post. I'll just wait until one of my friends posts it on facebook and then I'll share their post. It happened to me before with an article of his, but never happens to me with anything else I try to post.
     
    AndyPR likes this.
  8. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,590
    Likes:
    18,258
    moderated with many others
    They clearly have shared views. What I think is interesting is that getting informed consent from a patient is not a community responsibility but a personal one. If they are using the PACE study to assert benefits and lack of harm along with ignoring the criticism of PACE and patient reports then I would see that as a failure of their personal duty to get informed consent. Which I think puts them in an interesting legal position.
     
    ScottTriGuy likes this.
  9. lnester7

    lnester7 Seven

    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes:
    3,312
    USA
    Can somebody explain what was the tile of the submitted paper and what is it about, a critic of PACE or something unrelated??/
     
    Ritto likes this.
  10. AndyPR

    AndyPR RIP PR :'(

    http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...liminary-re-analysis-of-the-pace-trial.48323/
     
  11. sarah darwins

    sarah darwins I told you I was ill

    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes:
    10,416
    Cornwall, UK
    Wow. I just read that 'review'. I'm torn between 'supercilious' and 'pompous' and 'self-regarding' and 'patronising' and ... actually, I'm not torn. They all apply.
     
    Woolie, Snow Leopard, ukxmrv and 11 others like this.
  12. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,590
    Likes:
    18,258
    moderated with many others
    Wolfiness, Cheshire and Esther12 like this.
  13. trishrhymes

    trishrhymes Save PR. Sack the President of the Board.

    Messages:
    2,155
    Likes:
    17,892
    I think it is this paper. The BMJ refused to publish it. I think the review was written some time ago when it was offered to the BMJ, but has only just been revealed.
     
    AndyPR and BurnA like this.
  14. daisybell

    daisybell Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes:
    7,354
    New Zealand
    I'm disgusted by that reviewer. And terrified that someone like that is actually seeing patients...
     
    Woolie, Orla, SamanthaJ and 5 others like this.
  15. JayS

    JayS Senior Member

    Messages:
    194
    Likes:
    534
    I don't think it's the same paper. The reanalysis paper appeared in a time frame that doesn't suggest there was time between when the data was released & the paper was published, if in between it was sent to the BMJ & enough time spent for review & consideration resulting in refusal to publish. When Carolyn Wilshire put this up on Twitter I got the sense she had received this fairly recently, not that she'd been sitting on it for awhile, and then suddenly put it up on Twitter months after the paper was actually published, saying 'now I know what pwme are up against'. I could be wrong, of course. But then also I kind of doubt the BMJ would've been the first place the reanalysis paper would've been sent. There was an urgency to get that out there, and if the BMJ hasn't been the most unfriendly journal towards ME historically, I don't know what is.
     
    Esther12 likes this.
  16. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Hibernating

    Messages:
    4,613
    Likes:
    12,424
    South Australia
    Very strange review and very disappointing response from the editors.
     
    Sean, Valentijn, Woolie and 2 others like this.
  17. Woolie

    Woolie Gone now, hope to see you all again soon somewhere

    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes:
    14,516
    Agreed. But its still kind of interesting to see what they did when put to the test. Patient-led research, my a*s*! :mad:

    Its the same old story: patient-led research, but not for patients with ME, they are just plain crazy. Yep, some patients are more equal than others.

    If nothing else, this whole thing has been very revealing.

    (a*s*: UK spelling, somehow much stronger!)
     
    Chezboo, Sean, trishrhymes and 3 others like this.
  18. Chrisb

    Chrisb Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes:
    5,392
    Can any of you scientists explain the normal review model?

    I had always assumed that the editor identified reasonably disinterested experts in the field, sought such acceptable alterations as could bring about unanimity, and possibly have a casting vote himself in the event of failure to agree.

    This case suggests a completely different model in which the paper is submitted to people who might reasonably be expected to have widely divergent views on it and then after a sort of adversarial process, make up his own mind on the merits of the paper based on the reviews.

    It is hard to understand whether the review in this case should be regarded as "perverse", in that it recommends publication on grounds which would usually suggest refusal, or whether there is a "private language" shared by editor and reviewer which allows for the "ironic review" to be correctly interpreted.
     
    Woolie, Sean and trishrhymes like this.
  19. AndyPR

    AndyPR RIP PR :'(

    OK, investigated a bit and it does look like it's a new, as yet unpublished paper. This is where Carolyn revealed the review.


    Down the comment feed Carolyn notes


    @Tom Kindlon can you confirm which paper this review applies to? I'm guessing with your recent collaboration with Carolyn that you might know.
     
    ukxmrv, trishrhymes and Valentijn like this.
  20. Woolie

    Woolie Gone now, hope to see you all again soon somewhere

    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes:
    14,516
    Well, most journals will just seek experts on the topic or perhaps the methodologies used in the paper. That's the end to it. Often they seek two, and if they massively disagree, another may be sought. It depends on the editor - some editors will consider the paper carefully too and may use their discretion in case of disagreement. Others will just leave it all to the reviewers, and go for the majority vote.

    If the article is in an area with high disagreement, the approach is really at the discretion of the journal. Many will be guided by the authors' recommendations (specified at submission). So that at least some of the reviewers will be coming from the same standpoint as the authors. They might also choose someone from the other standpoint for balance. If the article's a critique, some will also send it to the authors of the original paper (but won't necessarily base their decision on what these people recommend; its more to get an idea of quality of arguments).

    BMJ is a bit more like a magazine than a regular academic journal. So they're interested in whether you can make a good story that will entertain (alright, educate) their readers. They do send for referee reports, but they consider other things besides quality
    Yes, its a rather sneaky polemic technique, from what I can see, with the intention of preventing publication of the article, while superficially acquiescing to its publication.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page