 |
 |
Amy, I think you are correct that it is unfair to lump the BMJ with The Lancet and the NEJM. It is also unfair to condemn all those who work at those journals. It is, however, odd that: * The Lancet missed the rather glaring problems with the paper. I know some Lancet editors, and they are very smart. It is inconceivable to me that they could have missed the problems. * The Lancet has not retracted the paper themselves (they let the authors do it). In addition to the data being made freely available, why doesn’t The Lancet make all the documents related to their peer review process publicly available? Ditto for NEJM. Jeremy Director, Oxford Empathy Programme<https://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/oxford-empathy-programme> Senior Researcher and Impact Fellow,Oxford Faculty of Philosophy<https://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/people/dr-jeremy-howick> Personal website:www.jeremyhowick.com<http://www.jeremyhowick.com> From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Suhail Doi <[log in to unmask]> Reply to: Suhail Doi <[log in to unmask]> Date: Friday, 5 June 2020 at 15:15 To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Critical Apraisal of Lancet paper Amy My comment is neither unjustified nor harmful. The points I make are common sense one would think and when I say triple blind I refer to blinding of authors to reviewers, reviewers to authors and authors to editors. There is ample evidence to support this for example: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2556112 Although there are also those that find no difference but then do we need a trial to decide if we should insert our hands in boiling water without protection? Suhail From: Amy Price Sent: Friday, 5 June 2020 4:56 PM To: Suhail Doi Cc: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Critical Apraisal of Lancet paper Suhail This is unjustified and harmful. BMJ papers are reviewed by peer reviewers patient and public reviewers and a team of editors plus stats and methodologist. No single decision decides the fate of a paper. Can we stick to the merits or weaknesses of the research rather than throwing rocks at Journals? Thanks Best, Amy Stanford MedicineX On 5 Jun 2020, at 9:44 am, Suhail Doi <[log in to unmask]> wrote: The unfortunate state of affairs is that Lancet, NEJM, BMJ and JAMA are not serious about the peer review process and make decisions primarily based on author status and institutional prestige. The reason they do this is because they wish to prioritize "safe" research which they believe is associated with these two factors and sometimes it backfires as we just saw. One clear indicator that peer review is not taken seriously by these journals is the absence of blinded peer review by all of them. In fact, the most obvious is the BMJ with completely open peer review that serves no end. If they were really serious about peer review, these journals should have a triple blind system - editors, authors and reviewers. - thus leading the review process towards scientific merit. I guess what scares them the most is rebuffing a submission from someone "important" who can then get back to the journal Suhail ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1 This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/