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!
The Pathway to Prevention (P2P) for ME/CFS: A Dangerous Process
Gabby Klein gives an overview of the P2P process, shedding light on the pitfalls with advice as to what we can do in protest ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Suspense. Any news on WHEN the NIH/FDA study might come out?

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by FernRhizome, Jul 22, 2010.

  1. Eric Johnson from I&I

    Eric Johnson from I&I Senior Member

    Messages:
    337
    Likes:
    0
    CAA said on the 9th that the paper was expected "within weeks."

    What someone said here last night, I have heard before elsewhere: PNAS sometimes takes stuff off embargo days before it is actually published. Thus, you can read about something in the newspapers for three or four days before the actual paper is available to anyone.
     
  2. Eric Johnson from I&I

    Eric Johnson from I&I Senior Member

    Messages:
    337
    Likes:
    0
    Well, being in PNAS vs elsewhere is really a pretty big deal. PNAS is #3/4 across all of biomed (and maybe beyond) - and there really is no #5. Who #5 is varies by field and subfield.
     
  3. Megan

    Megan Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes:
    13
    Australia
    Thanks Eric, I forgot about the 'within weeks' comment.
     
  4. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,362
    Likes:
    6,423
    USA
    Me!:victory: It's in the Community Lounge.

    I am out-of-date with regard to the logistics of publication. I have been assuming that what looks like delay is just the normal time lag between PNAS receiving the modified/adapted paper and getting it into publication format. It's been less than a month, right?

    I've been saying not to expect to see the paper before mid-Aug, thinking about the logistics of publication, but today's procedures could be faster than I'm familiar with.

    Can anyone more current on scientific publication comment? What is the normal time lag these days?
     
  5. George

    George waitin' fer rabbits

    Messages:
    846
    Likes:
    44
    South Texas
    I don't know about the timelines. I mean we've seen everything from 6 months for the Science paper to like what, 5 days for the Weasel paper? So I think it depends on what the editor had for breakfast. (grins) But seriously, it looks like there are quite a bit of politics involved in these journals as well. I'm sure there are fantastic important papers that are never published at one journal because they go against an editors beliefs or the politics of the moment.

    I really do think that all the blah, blah, blah from the CAA * and "sources" are mostly just to keep us from kicking up to big a fuss and to buy some time. Which I understand. I would not want to be the DHHS/FDA/NIH (I add the CDC but no use mixing up the peas and carrots) when the paper does come out. And be seen as having my pants down around my ankles, no answers, no test, nothing about blood safety. I mean talk about a weiney roast, sheessss. (sorry guys, grins)

    And the CFS/ME story is going to make the media very, very, very happy for at least a year. It has all the makings of a Pulitzer prize. I mean next to AIDES this is wonderful, corrupt government officials, tragic loss, big scary retrovirus. I mean I figure I'll see half of you guy on the The View or the Todays Show or some other show before the end of next year. (grins)

    But I give it to till the 30th of August. If I don't see it before then I plan on screaming to the top of my lungs in the middle of highway 90 right across from channel 4. (grins)

    * (note I thinks the CAA tries really hard to do the right thing)
     
  6. knackers323

    knackers323 Senior Member

    Messages:
    837
    Likes:
    166
    Are they serious about releasing it? Thats the question.
     
  7. judderwocky

    judderwocky Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Likes:
    3

    Everybody just keeps getting quietly reassured. I hate to keep the reference alive.... but seriously? We've all seen the movie.... we all know what they did to HIV....
     
  8. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,362
    Likes:
    6,423
    USA
    DHHS (wasn't it them?) said the Alter paper is in the hands of PNAS. If they are lying (which I doubt) then they've put PNAS on the firing line if the DHHS suppresses the paper. PNAS won't put up with that. I'm guessing the paper is going through the publication process at PNAS and there's nothing (or very little) the CAA can (or should) do to hurry that process.
     
  9. jspotila

    jspotila Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes:
    608
    The paper will be published, according to what we've been told. PNAS is in charge of the timing, and no one knows (besides them) when the paper will actually be published.
     
  10. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    How long does it take to review the extra bit?

    Editor: blink, blink, "looks like before", blink, blink.
     
  11. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,362
    Likes:
    6,423
    USA
    It's probably all technical stuff -- the whole thing has to be reformatted, galleys produced and sent around for approval, committee agreement about which paper in the production schedule is going to be bumped to get the Alter paper in, etc, etc. Boring, but necessary.

    If they're actually peer-reviewing the changes, which is quite likely, then there's always a delay there. They can't expect busy researchers to drop everything the minute the paper shows up for review. Even if PNAS is in a hurry that alone could take a couple of weeks.
     
  12. katieann

    katieann

    Messages:
    57
    Likes:
    2
    colorado, US
    ROFL!! I love that.
     
  13. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    Editor: blink, blink, "CDC says they used the same method" blink, blink, he he he he he, grin.
     
  14. Hope123

    Hope123 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes:
    539
    Just FYI, if the paper is out for peer review again, it likely will take a few weeks unless the editor specifically asks for a shorter deadline. In case people don't know, reviewers are usually not paid to review papers and do it in addition to their usual paid work. Reviewers do it partly because it allows them early access to research results. I think one reason for anonymous reviews is so that reviewers can critique a paper freely without fear of reprise. The academic world in a specific field is much smaller than the general public realizes and many researchers know or are connected to each other in different ways. Human nature being what it is, researchers occasionally have feuds with other researchers based on bad reviews, prior bad experiences with the other researcher, personality clash, etc. Some journals will allow researchers submitting a paper to request a specific reviewer (who still might be anonymous) or ask that a specific person not review the paper for a specific reason (e.g. a competing group). These requests are granted case-by-case. One of my past acquaintances was a science journal editor.
     
  15. floydguy

    floydguy Senior Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes:
    238
    The world of scientific research is definitely not my area of expertise. It's very disappointing to keep seeing that it operates more like a junior high school girls locker room than a professional organization in search of enlightenment. It's also discouraging to see what a waste of money many of these studies are.
     
  16. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,508
    Likes:
    2,042
    London
    Wasn't the Editor going to be on leave for a while? I'm searching through the reports trying to find where it was said and for how long.

    Did find this quote though

    Dr. Randy Schekman, editor in chief of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said last week that he expected the matter to be resolved within weeks, although he would not discuss specifics of the study or the journal’s review of it. The journal, he added, had been “inundated by e-mails from people with chronic fatigue syndrome begging us to release this paper.”
     
  17. George

    George waitin' fer rabbits

    Messages:
    846
    Likes:
    44
    South Texas

    Dang Floyd and I was going to say like a guys high school locker room. (big grins) The paper went back to PNAS (according to Mindy) The week of July 5th. The editor (smart man) did take two weeks vaction but is back (as of the 20th (per Mindy) The paper has has had 4 weeks to be peer reviewed and licked, polished (o.k. o.k. the licking part was my ideal) proofed, poofed, galleyed and inserted.

    So I wonder what the hold up could be???? (me putting on my duh, stupid face)

    I'm sorry when did Dr. Le Grice send his essays to the other labs to begin the manufacturing process????????????

    (George wandering off behind the little animals)
     
  18. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    Do you think the publication date and this will match up?
     
  19. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,362
    Likes:
    6,423
    USA
    And just how do you know about junior high girls' locker rooms, floydguy? [raised eyebrow]

    I'm seeing more teen-aged male posturing, myself. But I can't speak for their lockerooms as I have no experience therein [self-righteous sniif]
     
  20. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,362
    Likes:
    6,423
    USA
    In th' good ole days, 4 weeks wasn't near enough time t' do that there job -- maybe 8 weeks, or 12 was more like it. Nowadays, with these young'ens rushin' around with their comp-yooters and their inter -nets might have it down to 6 weeks, but I'd be mightily surprised if it was much less.

    :sofa:
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page