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.
Part 2: What to look for in a Special Issue of Journal of Health Psychology concerning the PACE trial
Summaries and links to eight additional contributions to the special issue of Journal of Health Psychology on the controversial PACE trial.
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.
Asserting privilege: PACE investigators’ request that their manuscript not be peer reviewed or receive replies
After demanding parts of an article published in the Journal of Health Psychology be retracted, the PACE investigators requested their response be published without peer review and with no comments allowed.
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.”
Should authors declare a conflict of interest because they suffer from the illness they are writing about?
Some researchers issued a novel demand for correction of an undeclared conflict of interest stemming from the author of a criticism of their work being persons who suffered from the illness targeted by their intervention.
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?
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 5