 |
 |
This sounds like a great idea to me...one thing I would note is that we should probably classify objections found in rejection letters into true 'misconceptions' (i.e., ones that can be 'cleared up' through explication) and ones that just don't yet buy the fundamental critique of systematic review orthodoxy that was the subject of Ray's initial work applying realist principles in this area. I actually think that many reviewers in many journals are much more predisposed to considering alternatives than they were even five years ago, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that when most people hear 'systematic review' they still think 'meta-analysis', and therefore, anything other than that is just less 'systematic' (thus less serious and less rigorous) by definition. Optimistically, my sense is that many of the objections found in rejection letters are true misconceptions, and it is the work of precisely this type of collective endeavour that can help to 'systematically' weed these out and prepare reviewers for a fair assessment of realist reviews. Cheers, Simon. On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Trisha Greenhalgh <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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] > Twitter @trishgreenhalgh > > > > > > > > On 03/07/2012 03:19, "Joanne Lynn" <[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] >>202-776-5109 >>mobile 202-297-9773 >>for care transitions - see www.medicaring.org >>follow care transitions on Twitter @medicaring >>________________________________________ >>From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards >>[[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Gill Westhorp >>[[log in to unmask]] >>Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 9:47 PM >>To: [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]] On Behalf Of Kelly McShane >>Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:09 AM >>To: [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 (after pressing 1) >>Fax: 416-979-5273 >>Email: [log in to unmask]