worldbackwards
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,051
Does that make us the beat(en) generation?they're refusing to enter the ring instead just sing 'la la la were right' (not quite a The The song!).
Sorry.
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.
Does that make us the beat(en) generation?they're refusing to enter the ring instead just sing 'la la la were right' (not quite a The The song!).
After some reflection, I think they will prefer the retraction over the release of the data. If they release the data, and it shows what I think it will show, then the PACE house of cards and whole treatment approach is threatened. In comparison, a retraction is the lesser evil.
But it's hard to predict their behaviour when so many factors are unknown.
The good news is that regardless of the outcome, we make some progress. Refusal to publish data will motivate critics and strengthen their position in the legal process.
I cannot see a retraction happening on this basis I am afraid.
The paper in question has been published in PLOS One. Their data sharing policy punishes refusal to share data with retraction.
I believe it's American, though I couldn't swear to it. It's an online journal, it doesn't have a print edition.Is PLOS one a UK journal?
Interesting...
I think that Coyne sees some of the issues more clearly than the patient community, especially those concerning broader medical politics. But as he goes forth into this, it wouldn't surprise me if he continued to find that his standard tactics don't work here, that there is a far broader coalition squatting on this issue than is usual. Indeed he already is.
This is the appropriate editorial from 2014:Is it right the PLOS data sharing policy was implemented in 2014 ? So would it still apply to a 2012 paper ?
http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2014/02/24/plos-new-data-policy-public-access-data-2/There is nothing new in the policy about what types and forms of data should be shared. As we said in December, “PLOS journals have requested data be available since their inception, but we believe that providing more specific instructions for authors regarding appropriate data deposition options, and providing more information in the published article as to how to access data, is important for readers and users of the research we publish.” As we have further clarified, “the Data Policy states the ‘minimal dataset’ consists “of the dataset used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript with related metadata and methods, and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. This does not mean that authors must submit all data collected as part of the research, but that they must provide the data that are relevant to the specific analysis presented in the paper.” The ‘minimal dataset’ does not mean, for example, all data collected in the course of research, or all raw image files, or early iterations of a simulation or model before the final model was developed. We continue to request that the authors provide the “data underlying the findings described in their manuscript”. Precisely what form those data take will depend on the norms of the field and the requests of reviewers and editors, but the type and format of data being requested will continue to be the type and format PLOS has always required.
And I quoted yours, @worldbackwards, does that count as reflected glory????And Keith Laws quotes my post.
They might not have this choice, the ICO could still reject their appeal. It could end up being both, not either/or.After some reflection, I think they will prefer the retraction over the release of the data.
That thought made my day.They might not have this choice, the ICO could still reject their appeal. It could end up being both, not either/or.
Perhaps you're right, there's a narrative to be made where they can play the victim here. But it would still be hugely damaging.
They will try everything they can and use every piece of influence they can to not release the data or get retracted. And the problem is they have friends in high places both in government which, means judges, politicians, the media, medical journals etc, and also in the enormously powerful corporate industries which means.....ermmmm....judges, politicians, the media, medical journals etc.
There is nothing new in the policy about what types and forms of data should be shared. As we said in December, “PLOS journals have requested data be available since their inception, but we believe that providing more specific instructions for authors regarding appropriate data deposition options, and providing more information in the published article as to how to access data, is important for readers and users of the research we publish.” As we have further clarified, “the Data Policy states the ‘minimal dataset’ consists “of the dataset used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript with related metadata and methods, and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. This does not mean that authors must submit all data collected as part of the research, but that they must provide the data that are relevant to the specific analysis presented in the paper.” The ‘minimal dataset’ does not mean, for example, all data collected in the course of research, or all raw image files, or early iterations of a simulation or model before the final model was developed. We continue to request that the authors provide the “data underlying the findings described in their manuscript”. Precisely what form those data take will depend on the norms of the field and the requests of reviewers and editors, but the type and format of data being requested will continue to be the type and format PLOS has always required.