New Atmosphere, New Vision: Gibson and Whittemore Kick Off Invest in ME Conference 2016
Mark Berry reports on Dr. Gibson's introduction and Dr. Whittemore's keynote speech, at the 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Coyne: Should The BMJ silence authors who were abused by a reviewer?

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Valentijn, Apr 27, 2017.

  1. Valentijn

    Valentijn Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,281
    Likes:
    45,821
    https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...thors-who-were-abused-by-a-reviewer/#comments

    Excellent blog post from Coyne, regarding a PACE critique by Wilshire et al (?) that was treated pretty abhorrently by the BMJ editorial staff and one of their reviewers. Details in the blog are a bit vague, due to confidentiality concerns, but Wilshire added a comment that clarifies some aspects of the situation.

    Apparently the reviewer (Reviewer 2) focused exclusively on attacking the authors themselves, rather the content, and came up with some gems recounted by Coyne, such as:
    To which the BMJ editorial staff added:
    I strongly recommending reading the entire blog, as well as Wilshire's comment at the end. And adding your own comment, if you're up to it :)
     
  2. AndyPR

    AndyPR Senior Member

    Well, just goes to show the sort of thing we are up against in the UK. And of course it's only us patients who are vexatious and militant, not supporters of the BPS brigade....:bang-head:
     
  3. trishrhymes

    trishrhymes Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,153
    Likes:
    17,872
    We need to be a bit careful. Caroline Wiltshire does not say it was her PACE paper being referred to. What a pity confidentiality protects appalling reviewers.

    Edit: I misread the comment below hers as her comment. Oops. She does identify herself.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  4. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885




    So who do we think reviewer 2 is?

    I note that Navjoyt Ladher studied at KCL.

    https://uk.linkedin.com/in/navjoyt-ladher-795b058a

    More here:



    Click to see responses above
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
    Esther12, MEMum, lilpink and 6 others like this.
  5. AndyPR

    AndyPR Senior Member

    Err, this is the first thing from her comment on the blog
     
  6. Gijs

    Gijs Senior Member

    Messages:
    644
    Likes:
    1,302
    The ME/CFS community and specialists are fighting against narcissistic CBT / GET disciples with psychopathic features.
     
  7. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes:
    7,571
    Smells like some significant old school tie is at work here? How else to explain why the BMJ doesn't uphold its values?

    I agree with the lawyer ....you can't force confidentiality after the fact without a contract.

    My view is name and shame reviewer 2 for being exactly what they are for all to see. Perhaps they are so used to back room conversations they think they can make vile and unsubstantiated comments with absolute impunity.

    Smacks of delusional behaviour to me?
     
    cigana, JaimeS, ScottTriGuy and 6 others like this.
  8. trishrhymes

    trishrhymes Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,153
    Likes:
    17,872
    You're right, I read the wrong comment as hers and didn't see her comment.

    Slap hand. Must try harder.:redface:
     
  9. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885




    Absolutely. This is disgusting behaviour of reviewer 2 who has abused sick and disabled patients.






    This is her
    Navjoyt Ladher
    [​IMG]

    @NavjoytLadher
    https://twitter.com/navjoytladher?lang=en

    BMJ Editor's Choice: Secrets in Healthcare: AllTrials, Lobbyists and Patient Confidentiality
    https://forums.phoenixrising.me/ind...-lobbyists-and-patient-confidentiality.30458/


    Great Comment by Anton Mayer.



     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  10. AndyPR

    AndyPR Senior Member

    Well, next you'll be claiming you are chronically ill, when it's obvious that you have false comment beliefs! :rolleyes:;)
     
    JaimeS, ladycatlover, MEMum and 7 others like this.
  11. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes:
    23,191
    What's a reviewer 2?
     
  12. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes:
    13,705
    UK
    Surely peer reviews need to be open peer reviews, else you come back to the same fundamental flaws as when trial data is not made openly available. Openness is what helps avoid much of this.
     
    JaimeS, Wolfiness, PennyIA and 8 others like this.
  13. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes:
    14,558
    In journal reviews, reviewers' names are commonly withheld. So the reviewers are referred to using things like "Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2". There's a kind of joke around academia that reviewer 2 is often the one who abuses their position by making jibes at the authors and generally ranting. Its become a humorous shorthand for "that hasty reviewer who didn't actually do a proper scholarly analysis of your piece, but instead chose to rant at you"
     
  14. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes:
    9,863
    I think Carolyn's comment was the one above the one you pasted. (The commenter name appears below the comment as far as I can make out)
     
    trishrhymes and ukxmrv like this.
  15. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885
    You are right it is @MECFSQuestions. I always get the Wordpress commenters wrong. The names are in the wrong place.

    I have edited the post above.

    Here is another tweet from them tagging https://twitter.com/NavjoytLadher
     
  16. lilpink

    lilpink Senior Member

    Messages:
    878
    Likes:
    5,524
    UK

    That is stunning..as in.. I am actually stunned! Thought I'd seen it all. Common denominator of being part of the PACE Crowd has to be 'lack of insight'? Surely?

    Edit: link should have been the Wilshire twitter feed... apols for being cack handed.
     
  17. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885
    I think from the tone of Reviewer 2 in CW's tweet I am willing to guess it is Simon Wessely.
    Question- he has conflict of interest with the PACE trial and therefore surely should be precluded from it.??

    The vitriol and personal abuse in that review is stunning. Where is the SMC - will they doing a media campaign on this.Where is Andy Lewis and Max Pemberton in this? Do they know of this personal abuse?

    Just look at the way he turns the argument on its head and becomes the victim and defender of people with CFS who have false illness beliefs.

    Look at the way he viciously attacks the use of the word "merely" and then has this faux concern for patients with fearful cognitions and talks about "100% disability". He has made a career of denying the existence of the disability of ME and advises the DWP and insurers to dismiss and belittle the disability.

    Look at the way he questions about the whether they are writing about "syndromes of chronic fatigue". No it is ME/CFS.

    It is a disgraceful way to write whoever the author but especially given some were patients.

    The PACE authors and he has said much worse about patients.
    www.meactionuk.org.uk/Quotable_Quotes_Updated.pdf
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  18. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Rebel without a biscuit

    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes:
    10,091
    Quoting the post was my way of 'liking' it.

    Here's one version of Ethical guidelines for peer review:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/authors/peer-review-science-publications

    While they also make a point of the anonymity of the process there's this:

    1. Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments; Science reserves the right to edit out comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts
    And there is no rationale for why there must be anonymity.


    It seems it's good to keep fighting the good fight and press onward with the truth about PACE. The entrenched view group is starting to sound unhinged.
     
    Barry53, Woolie, ladycatlover and 8 others like this.
  19. TiredSam

    TiredSam The wise nematode hibernates

    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes:
    21,538
    Germany
    Oh I really hope so.
     
  20. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes:
    23,191
    Wessely is PR savvy. I think it's someone else. The anger suggests it's someone who stands to lose a lot from PACE trial retraction and collapse of the psychosocialbabble model. Maybe Sharpe?
     
    JaimeS, Esther12, Countrygirl and 5 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page