thanks for the response.
with respect, you didn't answer my question. i wasn't asking you about
"inappropriateness" on the editor's part, but whether you would have fired
george lundberg, with no prior discussion with the editorial board, if the
study discovered that fellatio was regarded as degrading intercourse by
the respondents.
would you?
can we keep the discussion public until you answer it?
@@@@ marks my other responses
cheers
dls
-----------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Andrew Thomas wrote:
As an answer to your question -- yes, it would have been just as
inappropriate to print an article at this time which stated that 100% of
the students considered oral sex as "sex."
......
......
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Andrew Thomas wrote:
If you owned the BMJ, would you expect the editor of it to take a stance
on either side about whether your Prime Minister lied to a court of law or
obstructed justice in a case that revolved around the definition of a
sexual act just becuase a researcher had data that showed a group of
college age students 8 years ago felt that the same acts he committed were
or were not sex??
@@@@ i have no prior expectations about what he would do (but am
forwarding this note to the editor, richard smith, to see what he would
say).
if i thought he was daft to do it i would either:
1. ignore it (most likely in this case, since i think some of the stuff in
the BMJ IS daft!)
or if i was really incensed:
2. start some due-process of review, convey my concerns to the editorial
board, have an open meeting with the BMJ editorial board, the journal
staff, BMA staff, etc where he could defend himself, reach a decision
(keep him on, don't renew his contract, give him notice [can't imagine
locking him out and stopping his email account] and publish the whole
affair in the journal, giving him right to reply.
......
......
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Andrew Thomas wrote:
Why would the BMJ take a position on the issue that is so far outside of
its expertise?? Would you agree that this data is closer to a suped-up
Gallop poll than a scientifically or medically significant paper??
@@@@ 1. JAMA did NOT take a position (no editorial) so this doesn't make
sense (maybe that's part of your problem?).
2. relevant expertise here is survey research methods, and that's
what peer review is about.
3. scientific and medical significance is in the mind of the
editorial board and the reader, not the BMA or AMA.
......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof David L. Sackett Email: [log in to unmask]
Director, Phone: +44-(0)1865-221320
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Fax: +44-(0)1865-222901
Level 5, John Radcliffe Hospital WWW: http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/
Oxford OX3 9DU
England
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|