Journal of Health Psychology Editor responds to misrepresentations by Cochrane author in Mental Elf blog
A Cochrane review author made a number of false claims in his Mental Elf blog post about why his manuscript about PACEgate was rejected by the Journal of Health Psychology.
A Special issue of Journal of Health Psychology concerns PACE, a trial of therapies for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) that has attracted a great deal of controversy
Publication of the special issue of Journal of Health Psychology will go forward as planned on Monday July 31.
An author, Kjell Gundro Brurberg appealed the rejection of his manuscript. He was offered an opportunity to nominate additional reviewers, but to ensure they did not have conflicts of interest. What happened next…
Paul Dieppe, the initial Chair of Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee for the PACE trial is also renowned as a “leading global voice in the understanding and advancement of energy/ spiritual healing.”
OK, Michael Sharpe, I get it that 400 peer reviewed publications don't qualify me as a reviewer of your paper, I am just not seasoned enough. but could you show me what you look for in a reviewer worthy of evaluating your manuscript?
NICE guidelines are discrepant with meta analyses and based on political considerations: An exchange
Are NICE guidelines often based on political considerations and discrepant with the results of meta-analyses and other best evidence?
The PACE trial of cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome has been enormously destructive of the campaign for open, more trustworthy science in the UK. With clear conflicts of interest, the investigators of one of the largest psychotherapy trials ever switched scoring of some outcomes and suppressed other outcomes altogether […]
Patients writing about their health condition were abused by a peer reviewer and silenced by The BMJ
Should patients submitting manuscripts concerning health conditions provide proof of their diagnoses, such as medical records or letters from their physicians? Should The BMJ apologize to these patients and their academic collaborator co-authors, given that no such apology has been forthcoming from the Action Editor?
- Page 1 of 4