Latest ETA for publication of the PACE Trial results

[Dx Revision Watch]

May be reposted if republished unedited and with source attributed


Latest ETA for publication of the PACE Trial results

Today, I have spoken to a press officer at Barts and also to the
Communications office of Queen Mary, University of London (including Barts
and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry) for an ETA on the
publication of the PACE Trial results.

I was advised by the latter that publication is not now anticipated this
side of the New Year; that it remained to be confirmed, but the most recent
ETA was understood to be end of January. The publishing journal is also to
be confirmed, though the Lancet was mentioned as a possibility.

The office has taken my contact details with a view to providing an update
when more information becomes available and I will post any further
information that might be forthcoming.


Related information:

PACE Trial website: http://www.pacetrial.org/index.html
PACE Trial Protocol: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/7/6
KCL website: Pacing, graded activity and cognitive behaviour therapy:
a randomised evaluation (the MRC PACE trial):
http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/departments/?locator=355&project=10068


Suzy Chapman
_____________________

me.agenda@virgin.net
http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com
http://meagenda.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/MEagenda
http://twitter.com/MEagenda

 

[Sasha]

The publishing journal is also to be confirmed, though the Lancet was mentioned as a possibility.

That seems odd - usually, researchers don't say where they're intending to submit a paper in case it gets turned down and they are embarrassed by the rejection. The normal thing is to submit it and only say where it's appearing once it has been accepted (is "in press"). But if they're talking about publication by the end of the year, it sounds as though it already must be in press, otherwise they wouldn't have any idea of timeframe.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

That seems odd - usually, researchers don't say where they're intending to submit a paper in case it gets turned down and they are embarrassed by the rejection. The normal thing is to submit it and only say where it's appearing once it has been accepted (is "in press"). But if they're talking about publication by the end of the year, it sounds as though it already must be in press, otherwise they wouldn't have any idea of timeframe.

First it was supposed to be Spring, then possibly October before the BACME 2010 Conference then a rumour of early December and possibly in the BMJ.

But what I was told, today, was not this side of New Year but possibly end of January (but tbc).

I asked if it would be BMJ but was told possibly the Lancet, but journal also tbc.

The FINE Trial paper was BMJ and open access. I would have thought the PACE Trial might also be open access which might make the Lancet less likely.

There is some information here on submitting papers to the Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com/writing-for-the-lancet

The Lancet's Online First page says:

"Below are the latest Lancet articles published online ahead of print publication
Many research papers will have been peer-reviewed and published via our fast-track process within 4 weeks of submission"

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

The Lancet

Information for Authors

http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/authors/lancet-information-for-authors.pdf

 

[Sasha]

"Below are the latest Lancet articles published online ahead of print publication
Many research papers will have been peer-reviewed and published via our fast-track process within 4 weeks of submission"

But those papers published online have been peer-reviewed and the authors will have been notified that they have been accepted, first for online and then for print publication. I find it odd that the authors appear to be saying where it will "probably" turn up. Either the paper has been accepted by a journal or it's still with the reviewers and in the latter case, it's odd that the authors would be dropping hints about who it's with, in case it is rejected and they are embarrassed.

Oh well! I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

BMJ

Article submission

http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/article-submission


BMJ peer reviewers: resources

http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/reviewers

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

But those papers published online have been peer-reviewed and the authors will have been notified that they have been accepted, first for online and then for print publication.

I am aware of that.

I find it odd that the authors appear to be saying where it will "probably" turn up. Either the paper has been accepted by a journal or it's still with the reviewers and in the latter case, it's odd that the authors would be dropping hints about who it's with, in case it is rejected and they are embarrassed.

Oh well! I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

My information was not provided by the CIs or collaborating authors directly. It came from the press office of Queen Mary's and is based on what information was apparently available to them, in the office, yesterday.

It is unlikely that I would be able to obtain firmer information from the CIs themselves, who would likely refer me back to the press office. The focus of my enquiries was primarily to establish whether the paper was scheduled for publication this side of Christmas. It has taken four phone calls to obtain the information that the paper won't be published before the end of the year.

Suzy

 

[Sasha]

No problem, Suzi - I didn't mean to put you on the spot, I was just waffling on!

 

[pictureofhealth]

Are publishing details usually this vague? Or does it mean (she asked hopefully!) that the potential publishers either aren't that impressed with the paper, or worried now that the FDA, NIH and others are looking at a possible retrovirus and they don't want to be seen in future as the ones publishing out of date 'management' strategies and not being 'with it'?

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

No problem, Suzi - I didn't mean to put you on the spot, I was just waffling on!

It's OK, Sasha. I'm as frustrated with the vagueness as you are but I'm not a press card holder and it can be difficult obtaining information from organisations' press offices.

I started my enquiries, last week, with Barts press office. I spoke to three different people since no-one had got back to me with the information I was seeking. Eventually, I was told it was Queen Mary's Communications Office with whom I needed to speak - not Barts - and I was given a phone number. So it was only yesterday that I was able to speak to someone who was able to give me some information (as the owner of two health related websites).

It may be the case that the paper has been reviewed and is awaiting publication and that a publication date has been confirmed but the press office has been instructed not to give out that information prior to the issuing of a media release, early next year.

It may be the case that the paper has been peer reviewed for one journal, rejected and is still in the process of being reviewed for another journal and the authors don't yet know when the paper will be published but again, the press office may not be able/willing to give this information out - I don't know.

But at least it doesn't look, now, as though the paper will be out before January, and possibly not until the end of January or later.

The office couldn't clarify whether the paper would be published as open access (the FINE Trial, published by BMJ, was). I would have thought the BMJ and open access was more likely for PACE than the Lancet and behind a subscription/pay by paper.

If I haven't received any further information by phone or email by early January, I'll give the office another call. I will also ask whether any information about a publication date will be released publicly before a media release is issued a few days before the paper appears in whatever journal has accepted it.

Suzy

 

[Sasha]

Thanks, Suzy - it's all very peculiar! And frustrating for you to get such a runaround.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Thanks, Suzy - it's all very peculiar...

It certainly is. The researchers had given the impression that the results might be out in time for the BACME Conference.

Then the Barts 25th CF Service celebration (held on 29 November) programme had said:

http://www.bartscfsme.org/Documents/PROGRAMME 291110.pdf

11.45am PACE trial: Is knowledge more useful than belief?

(Professor White will only give outcome results if the main paper has been published)

-------

So why the delay until early next year if the paper has been sitting with a publisher since before September?

Suzy

 

[oceanblue]

The office couldn't clarify whether the paper would be published as open access

The MRC are now very pro open acces and projects submitted since 2006 are required to be published as open access papers, preferably on publication but otherwise with 6 months http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/Ethicsresearchguidance/Openaccesspublishing/FAQ/index.htm#P72_7452. PACE predates that, but as FINE, funded at around the same time as PACE, was open access I suspect that PACE will be too.

 

[Dolphin]

Maybe PDW and co aren't used to the review process being slow. Perhaps in the past they have often gotten an easy ride with the BMJ, for example. If one looks at a lot of papers, it can take a year or more from submission to publication (they often mention when the revisions were submitted). And there can be a gap of a few months between acceptance and publication.