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 register, simply click the Register button at the top right.
The ICMJE proposal was one reason why Jeff Drazen was in town. He was speaking at a meeting convened by the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Wellcome Trust. It was a bracing moment for all editors with grand designs.
The case against editor-driven mandated data sharing was made vociferously.
We published a letter from researchers in Ghana, India, Tanzania, Uganda, the UK, Zambia, and Zimbabwe objecting strenuously to the 6-month rule. They argued that if trials are conducted in low-income countries the demand for data sharing after 6 months would allow scientists in high-income countries to outpace (and therefore undermine) colleagues in lower-income settings.
But when it comes to influencing research practice, editors should work with researchers, not against them.
How can peer review only mean, "the stuff that we say we found that got us passed for publication by two or three "independent reviewers"?
Why would any scientist bother to try to get access to funds to attempt to replicate your findings if they don't have access to check your data to see if its even a credible or correct conclusion?