1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Give ME the Money
Graham McPhee spells out some of the cold, hard facts about the dismal state of ME research and politics, and has some suggestions as to what we can do about it ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

PACE Trial - letters that were published and authors' response (and editorial)

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, May 16, 2011.

  1. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes:
    4,867
    As the Lancet have been told repeatedly about other errors, they must be fully aware these exist. Didn't Mullan even concede to Hooper last year that the editorial will be corrected? The Lancet do not seem to care much about errors, is this in general or is it just towards PACE? I tried to get them to correct the erroneous claim that Hooper's complaint to the Lancet is available on Wikipedia, but it was deemed unnecessarily that any distinction should be made between the actual Wikipedia website vs the same MediaWiki software used on mecfsforums.com.
     
  2. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,840
    Likes:
    12,341
    South of England
    It is a very strange and arrogant attitude, isn't it. I'm quite surprised by their lack of responsiveness, but then I've never been involved in this sort of thing before. I think it might be about saving face: They've made such glaring and hideous errors that maybe it would be embarrassing for them to correct them, as it would bring attention to them. Yes, they did acknowledge the glaring mistake in the commentary re the imaginary 'recovery rates', and said they would correct it, if my memory serves me right, and that was months ago.
     
  3. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes:
    4,867
  4. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes:
    2,809
    WA, USA
    one can ask a mod to edit it
     
  5. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes:
    2,809
    WA, USA
    ah, you're right--this could be very tricksy
     
  6. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    793
    Likes:
    1,943
    Its interesting to compare the Lancet's attitude with that of the open journal publishing the rituximab paper.

    The lancet publishes just another repeated trial with a lot of spin around the results and then an erronouius editorial. In other words a dull paper which represents poor science and very bad editorial policy. The first point suggests they are not the place to look for or publish new or ground breaking research the second I think eventually their reputation will be seriously damaged (not only for their errors but the fact they were questioned and failed to respond). So dull journal that publishes poor science.

    Compare this to the journal publishing Fluge and Mella's work. There paper was well constructed - the trial was far from perfect but they cover the issues in their paper. And it is ground breaking work - in that it offers an insight into mechanism. They have had a lot of readers.

    To me this is a big win for open publishing. If I was the lancet I would be really worried by this move to open publishing. One issue in deciding where to publish is to look at the impact factor of a journal (i think it is based on citations). Open journals are struggling to break through but the type of arogance shown by the Lancet will help this break through happen. Don't forget scientific publishing is hughly profitable.
     
    Bob likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page