JISCMail - RAMESES Archives

Further to this - we must not simply problematize the editors and reviewers (after all they are in most cases fellow academics and colleagues). It would be equally helpful to identify where realist review is weak (in either methods or reporting) and try to strengthen these methods while remaining true to its principles. For example in the course of two ongoing realist reviews I have developed systematic and explicit methods for searching for theories - to avoid magicking candidate theories out of the air and a systematic method for identifying "clusters" of reports around a single study - to provide richness of context and/or underpinning theory. (The wider point is that systematic does not necessarily equal comprehensive/exhaustive)

As you propbably have guessed I'm one for getting the retaliation in first i.e. we should try to forestall the objections rather than just being seen to be "wingeing" after rejection.

BW

Andrew

On 04/07/2012 07:29, Geoff Wong wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">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]> 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]] On Behalf Of Gill Westhorp [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 July 2012 00:33

To: [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]] On Behalf Of Kelly McShane
Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 11:50 PM
To: [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 (after pressing 1)
Email: [log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Trisha Greenhalgh
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:38 AM
To: [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]
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]