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?
The authors and Queen Mary University of London shared the data policy in place at the institution, however we consider that aspects of the existing framework impose limitations and conditions not aligned with our editorial policy.
The small amount of data from a clinical trial that was released and reanalyzed suggests that all the data from the trial should be publicly available.
Authors's proposed guidelines for sharing data are intended to protect them from reputational damage arising from reanalysis of their data.
Reply to an author complaining about my critique of a RCT of CBT for an unrecognized mental disorder
I explained to an author why I didn't like his study and why I didn't think a letter to the editor would suffice.
Simon Wessely's continued praise of PACE chronic fatigue syndrome trial suggest he is out of touch with current standards for clinical trials.