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

[trishrhymes]

I've just read Coyne's latest blog where he posts the full review. A pity he didn't name and shame the author, though he gives some identifying details. Anyone care to reveal the name?

It's truly amazing in the level of bile and insults poured on the authors, questioning their professional standing (Wiltshire) and whether they really have CFS (patient authors).

It's the most unprofessional, incoherent, diatriabe imaginable. Unbelievable.

It doesn't actually look at any of the specifics in the paper it's supposed to be reviewing, just pours out thousands of words of vile insults on the authors.

If that's what peer review has descended to, heaven help us all.

I'm amazed the BMJ didn't send it back as unacceptable.

 

[RogerBlack]

I do wonder what reviewer #3s review was.
While of course it is permissible for a journal not to publish with three 'you should publish' reviews, it is certainly questionable - when put along with the editorial comment.

 

[Chrisb]

Google is a wonderful tool. A quick search of psychiatrists Glasgow provides a very likely candidate.

 

[Esther12]

This makes the BMJ 'our editorial response was more positive than the reviews' odd.

It is even more odd, as this lengthy 'negative' review still recommends it is published as it stands.

Where did you get that BMJ quote from? I didn't see it.

@Chrisb - possible any speculations here could be unhelpful?

 

[RogerBlack]

Where did you get that BMJ quote from? I didn't see it.

@Chrisb - possible any speculations here could be unhelpful?

First page of thread - I misremembered.
"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 would echo the implication that this reviewer absolutely should not be attempted to be 'outed' by the patient community.

 

[AndyPR]

New thread for the new blog by Coyne http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...sed-by-a-peer-reviewer-silenced-by-bmj.51373/

 

[Chrisb]

possible any speculations here could be unhelpful?

I hadn't realised that it was speculative to regard Glasgow as being in the west of Scotland.

 

[RogerBlack]

I hadn't realised that it was speculative to regard Glasgow as being in the west of Scotland.

Doing anything that can be characterised as 'outing' or 'harassment' that comes from the patient community is _extraordinarily_ unwise. Even if it is easy for anyone to come to the same conclusion.

 

[BurnA]

Doing anything that can be characterised as 'outing' or 'harassment' that comes from the patient community is _extraordinarily_ unwise. Even if it is easy for anyone to come to the same conclusion.

This is what they want you to say so they keep everyone quiet. Just remember that. They will claim anything as harassment so does that mean we can't do anything?

 

[Chrisb]

Doing anything that can be characterised as 'outing' or 'harassment' that comes from the patient community is _extraordinarily_ unwise. Even if it is easy for anyone to come to the same conclusion.

I trust then that you will address the same comment to James Coyne.

 

[RogerBlack]

This is what they want you to say so they keep everyone quiet. Just remember that. They will claim anything as harassment so does that mean we can't do anything?

Trying to publicise the name of this reviewer is on balance considerably less helpful than simply responding to their comments in my opinion.
(for the patient community).
Many reasonable people could take that as actual harassment, especially if they haven't gone into it in depth. It is these people we want to convince, and absolutely want to avoid giving them concrete ammunition.
Comment publicly on their review, make fun of the arguments in it, campaign against the BMJ editorial policy - great. But posting identities of people who are concealed through even the thinnest of barriers will seem to many who are not involved as questionable.

 

[RogerBlack]

I trust then that you will address the same comment to James Coyne.

No, because he is not a member of the patient community, he is an outspoken scientist, and if someone starts complaining about other scientists being nasty to them, that tends to get a more critical look.

 

[Esther12]

It's up to people to make their own decisions, but I think it's worth at least considering the likely costs/benefits of what we post for things like this. We've seen how reasonable actions by patients have been misrepresented and presented as forms of harassmnet. I'm not saying that I know what's best. I try to be cautious partially because a lot of this stuff is so intensely irritating that it can be hard to calmly think about what is best!

 

[BurnA]

We've seen how reasonable actions by patients have been misrepresented and presented as forms of harassmnet.

That's my point. It doesn't matter what we do it will be portrayed as harassment if certain people don't like it.

So there is no point in worrying about it.

 

[RogerBlack]

That's my point. It doesn't matter what we do it will be portrayed as harassment if certain people don't like it.

So there is no point in worrying about it.

There is a difference between portrayal of harassment that the average man in the street will accept, and that that they will not.

If you start claiming that causing debates in the house of lords is harassment, then pretty much everyone is going to look at you sideways if they think about it for a moment.

 

[Esther12]

That's my point. It doesn't matter what we do it will be portrayed as harassment if certain people don't like it.

So there is no point in worrying about it.

I totally disagree with that. We can make it harder for them to use what we do to smear us.

 

[user9876]

I've just read Coyne's latest blog where he posts the full review. A pity he didn't name and shame the author, though he gives some identifying details. Anyone care to reveal the name?

Although the reviewer's behavior and review is strange and not what I would expect from an academic the real problem is that the BMJ editorial committee took the review seriously.

 

[Valentijn]

Although the reviewer's behavior and review is strange and not what I would expect from an academic the real problem is that the BMJ editorial committee took the review seriously.

And they took it even further by saying the reviewers were more positive about the paper than they (the editors) were. What a bunch of nasty little gits.

 

[BurnA]

We can make it harder for them to use what we do to smear us.

At what cost to ourselves. Let's stay silent so they can't smear us, ehh.... why isn't anyone listening to us?

 

[BurnA]

There is a difference between portrayal of harassment that the average man in the street will accept, and that that they will not.

Yes there is, I know that, but the average man on the street hears claims of harassment of academics by patients and doesn't question it. The average man on the street does not realise that a FOI request can be claimed as harassment.


The average man on the street is not interested in details I'm afraid. We have lost that fight years ago.