Stephen
You would say that wouldn't you! I think it's a question of 'both-and' not
'either-or'. The editorial and peer-review process should not be beyond
scrutiny, though I do agree that if research is undertaken it should be
constructive and ethical.
So many of us have been in receipt of ill-informed and arrogant rejection
letters about realist review, and I think it's time systematically to
study what exactly is being said to people who are trying to change the
paradigm, and to expose how power is being wielded.
Prof Trisha Greenhalgh
Global Health, Policy and Innovation Unit
Centre for Primary Care and Public Health
Blizard Institute
Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Yvonne Carter Building
58 Turner Street
London E1 2AB
t : 020 7882 7325 (PA) or 7326 (dir line)
f : 020 7882 2552
e: [log in to unmask]
Twitter @trishgreenhalgh
On 06/07/2012 16:40, "Stephen Hanney" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>As co-editors of Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS) and Evidence
>and Policy respectively (but writing in individual capacities as members
>of the RAMESES list) we've been following this discussion with
>considerable interest and suggest that perhaps the best way forward could
>be to concentrate on putting maximum effort into getting the RAMESES
>publication standards published and adopted as widely as possible. Then
>authors could have the option of referring to it in their articles, and
>editors and reviewers could also check it if they had concerns about the
>approach or about a specific paper. Building on what Geoff says below we
>think perhaps the most useful role for any analysis of the rejection
>letters might be help ensure the publication standard cover as many of
>the issues as possible rather than necessarily seeking a separate
>publication based on the rejection letters.
>
>Hope these points of view are useful for the realist approach, and for
>example in HARPS we're pleased that the 2009 realist review paper by
>Marjolein Dieleman and colleagues
>(http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/pdf/1478-4505-7-7.pdf ) has
>attracted considerable attention, and is the third most highly accessed
>paper in the journal in the last 12 months.
>
>Steve Hanney and Annette Boaz
>
>Steve Hanney
>Professorial Research Fellow
>Health Economics Research Group (HERG)
>Brunel University
>Uxbridge
>UB8 3PH, UK
> [log in to unmask]
>Tel: +44 (0)1895 265444
>
>Dr Annette Boaz
>Lecturer in Translational Research
>King's College London
>[log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kelly McShane
>Sent: 05 July 2012 01:25
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Analysing rejection letters on realist reviews
>
>Alright--- Sounds like we have ample support + expert opinion in the
>group.
>The plan then sounds like:
>1. Trisha will get REB approval from her institution (which should open
>the door/rubber stamp things for other institutions).
>2. Geoff has agreed to vet (thanks)
>3. Tim has experience (and perhaps is willing? did I put words in your
>mouth ;) with discourse analysis + REB and considers "the abuse of
>editorial power coupled with hubris" to be a "serious problem in
>academia" (had to quote it---- LOVED it....)
>4. Kelly (that's me... nice to meet you all, virtually) is interested in
>collating the letters + analysing. I am also a qualitative researcher, so
>am totally into doing a critical review or other type of analysis.
>
>
>Next step: Trisha to update on the status of REB (can you add my name to
>app? Would make it easier to "recruit" letter holders). Once REB
>approved, let collation begin!
>
>Pleasure chatting with you, I feel equipped to write a nice rebuttal to
>the journal and inspired for future realist reviews!
>
>Kelly
>
>________________________________________
>Kelly McShane, Ph.D., C. Psych.
>Assistant Professor
>Department of Psychology
>Ryerson University
>350 Victoria Street
>Toronto Ontario Canada M5B 2K3
>Phone: 416-979-5000, ext 2051 (after pressing 1)
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>________________________________
>From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
>[[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Geoff Wong [[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 2:29 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: journal suggestions
>
>Nice to be nominated to so things in my absence :-)
>Happy to have a look and comment.
>Just to say that one of the things we did in developing the RAMESES
>publication standards was to try to capture these very issues that seem
>to cause 'confusion' for some editors and peer-reviewers. So for example,
>that it is OK for a realist review to be iterative or that a search does
>not have to be exhaustive.
>There may be more that we have missed, but then a look at rejection
>letters would very possible help.
>Geoff
>
>
>On 4 July 2012 07:12, Rob Anderson
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>Only just picked up this trail - good idea!
>I would go further than Trish's strategy and rather than wait for the
>rejection/unfavourable peer review before sending the rebuttal, submit
>the supporting information with the paper when submitted: "Common reasons
>realist reviews are rejected by journals and why they are wrong".
>
>Or is that being too provocative!
>Rob
>
>________________________________________
>From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
>[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Gill
>Westhorp
>[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>Sent: 04 July 2012 00:33
>To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: journal suggestions
>
>Thanks for the offer to collect and collate.
>
>My first nomination for senior vet would be Geoff, at least for now.
>Rationale: he's the PI for the RAMESES project and he's very skilled and
>experienced in assessing syntheses, so he'll probably also be good at
>assessing whether the feedback is on or off track.
>
>(I also like the notion that that a doctor (medico) doctor (Phd) should
>also
>be a vet. Oh, that was awful. Couldn't help myself.)
>
>Mind you I suspect a number of list participants could share the load too.
>And it's a great way to get practice in being rigorous about assessing the
>strengths and weaknesses of both syntheses and critiques of syntheses.
>
>Gill
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf
>Of Kelly McShane
>Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 11:50 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: journal suggestions
>
>awesome thought! I am totally into that.
>I'm happy to start the collection, perhaps someone more senior from the
>group wants to vet them with me?!? don't want to step on any toes... just
>looking to help out.
>
>Kelly
>________________________________________
>Kelly McShane, Ph.D., C. Psych.
>Assistant Professor
>Department of Psychology
>Ryerson University
>350 Victoria Street
>Toronto Ontario Canada M5B 2K3
>Phone: 416-979-5000, ext 2051<tel:416-979-5000%2C%20ext%202051> (after
>pressing 1)
>Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>________________________________________
>From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
>[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of
>Trisha Greenhalgh
>[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:38 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: journal suggestions
>
>One thing the realist review community needs to do is collect all the
>rejection letters from major journals and pubish a paper explaining common
>editorial/reviewer misconceptions. That way, instead of reinventing the
>wheel every time our papers get rejected we can all just send a copy of
>the
>'generic rebuttal'.
>
>So when you get those rejection letters, think of them as DATA!
>
>Prof Trisha Greenhalgh
>Global Health, Policy and Innovation Unit Centre for Primary Care and
>Public
>Health Blizard Institute Barts and The London School of Medicine and
>Dentistry Yvonne Carter Building
>58 Turner Street
>London E1 2AB
>t : 020 7882 7325 (PA) or 7326 (dir line) f : 020 7882 2552
>e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Twitter @trishgreenhalgh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 03/07/2012 03:19, "Joanne Lynn"
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>>In the US, we probably have farther to go than you imagine. So far as
>>I can tell, our major medical journals, have never published a process
>>control chart, much less a realist evaluation. Pediatrics now has a QI
>>section, and we have a couple quality/safety journals. But otherwise,
>>it's an arid desert. Let me know if you know of contrary examples.
>>
>>Joanne Lynn
>>
>>
>>Joanne Lynn, MD, MA, MS
>>Director, Center on Elder Care and Advanced Illness Altarum Institute
>>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>202-776-5109<tel:202-776-5109>
>>mobile 202-297-9773<tel:202-297-9773>
>>for care transitions - see www.medicaring.org<http://www.medicaring.org>
>>follow care transitions
>>on Twitter @medicaring ________________________________________
>>From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
>>[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of
>>Gill Westhorp
>>[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 9:47 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Re: journal suggestions: MI for teen health
>>
>>Hi Kelly
>>It would be very useful for me (as a sometime trainer in RS) and
>>possibly for the RAMESES core team to see the specific concerns about
>>the methodology - perhaps you might be prepared to share them with us
>>in a bit more detail at another time, or perhaps through a private email
>(e.g.
>>to Geoff Wong or myself)?
>>
>>In relation to journals:
>>
>>Evaluation (European Journal) has published quite a bit of realist
>>evaluation stuff and may stretch to a realist review (might be worth an
>>exploratory email before you submit, asking their views on that!)
>>
>>I personally favour getting reviews into topic specific journals
>>because I think it will 'spread the word' about the fact that different
>>synthesis methods are 'available and out there'. Not to mention, good
>>examples might help demonstrate how useful the realist approach is!
>>
>>Others will be better informed than I about specific journals.
>>
>>Cheers
>>Gill
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf
>>Of Kelly McShane
>>Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:09 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: journal suggestions: MI for teen health
>>
>>Hi All-
>>Just got a manuscript rejected from Health Psychology Review as they
>>did not find the realist method credible (etc, save you the details).
>>The MS examines the use of motivational interviewing to address
>>adolescent health behaviours, using a realist review.
>>Suggestions for journals? Our team is thinking something European? Not
>>sure if a review journal is within our reach, or if something more
>>topic specific is better.
>>Thanks.
>>Kelly
>>______________________
>>Kelly McShane, Ph.D., C.Psych.
>>Assistant Professor
>>Department of Psychology
>>Ryerson University
>>350 Victoria Street
>>Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3
>>Phone: 416-979-5000, ext 2051<tel:416-979-5000%2C%20ext%202051> (after
>>pressing 1)
>>Fax: 416-979-5273<tel:416-979-5273>
>>Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
|