• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

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

Messages
15,786
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:
Coyne said:
Reviewer 2 expresses doubt whether there is any scientific contribution to the manuscript, although he recommends publishing it.

He makes clear his motivation for this recommendation: if the authors are not properly humiliated, “I will write in and tell the authors that they should know better and I think I would end with a “Shame on you”.

To which the BMJ editorial staff added:
BMJ said:
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 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 :)
 
Messages
2,158
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:
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.
Err, this is the first thing from her comment on the blog
I was one of the recipients of the abusive review James is talking about here. The manuscript being reviewed was a summary and critical analysis of the controversial PACE trial for chronic fatigue syndrome. Reviewer 2 has a long history of collaboration with the trial investigators, and has strong allegiances to the therapeutic approaches used in the trial. His sympathies are well known to the BMJ editors.
 
Messages
1,478
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?
 

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132


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




This is her
Navjoyt Ladher
GFfp_dy5.jpg

@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.



  • The attitude of this group of researchers towards patients and critics has always been awful, but this was mostly seen in their actions, not their language. Now that they are facing criticism that is harder to ignore, their language is changing. These shocking comments are the admission of utter defeat.

    Dear BMJ, please don’t attempt to silence critics and delay the inevitable. The claims by the PACE trial authors simply don’t reflect reality and this has harmed patients. It’s large medical scandal, and it’s only a matter of time until this is widely acknowledged. The Journal of Health Psychology has decided to give a voice to PACE trial critics, and so should you. The sooner you do it, the better for your reputation.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,263
What's a reviewer 2?
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"
 

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132

lilpink

Senior Member
Messages
988
Location
UK
More here:

.twitter-embed .twitter-tweet { min-height: 150px; border: 1px solid #f3f3f3; border-radius: 7px; padding: 6px 6px; background-color: #fff; } $.ajax({ url: "https://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/oembed.json?id=850170497232912384", dataType: "jsonp" }).done(function(data) { $("div.tweet-id_850170497232912384").html(data.html); });


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.
 

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
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:

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
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.

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.