A journal for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis to provide a space for ME research to be published?

[Andy]

Given that this tweet

which asks "Just wondering about setting up a journal for #MyalgicEncephalomyelitis to provide a space for #ME research to be published. Is this already available?" is getting a lot of engagement, I thought there might be value in a thread for the question.

 

[Simon M]

On the one hand, this makes sense. There are specialist journals for many illnesses. On the other hand, I wasn't aware there was a problem getting good quality ME papers published.

There is also Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health and Behaviour, which is ME-friendly and has people like Lenny Jason and Julia Newton on its editorial board.

 

[Andy]

On the other hand, I wasn't aware there was a problem getting good quality ME papers published.

To be honest this was one of my thoughts - is there any evidence of a widespread issue with getting ME papers published?

Another thought I had was "who has the time and money available to set up and run it?" - not that I know how much time and money would be needed but I assume that some of both would be required.

 

[Dolphin]

If I recall correctly, the IACFS/ME have to subsidise it.

Previously there was the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It wasn’t PubMed-listed.

The Bulletin of the IACFS/ME also published peer-reviewed papers for a number of years. Again not PubMed-listed.

 

[Trish]

To save me repeating myself, here are my responses on Twitter:

 

[Denise]

While I understand the desire to have a journal that focuses on ME (and certainly the Fatigue journal does not do so exclusively), I wonder how that exclusivity would affect broad access? Would researchers/clinicians [ETA institutions] etc subscribe to it or would it only be accessed by individual articles found on (for instance) Google Scholar?
Also, how would it be paid for and would articles be behind paywalls which could negatively impact dissemination?

 

[Jaybee00]

Another thought I had was "who has the time and money available to set up and run it?" - not that I know how much time and money would be needed but I assume that some of both would be required.

Elsevier and Springer have made a ton of money off of subscription journals (billions)—so money is not an issue if they agree to publish/market the journal. Open access journals/publishers get their funding from page charges —e.g. PLOS (non-profit), MDPI (for profit),etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELX
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_Nature

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I never considered a need for a rheumatoid arthritis journal. If studies are well done they should be acceptable to wider remit journals - which carry higher reputations for what that is worth. Journal referees are often illogical and biased but at least you have a choice.

 

[Trish]

Also if there's an ME/CFS journal attracting the ME/CFS papers, no one outside the ME/CFS field will bother to read it. I like the idea of good ME papers appearing alongside all the other good research about other diseases in high impact journals.

 

[Hutan]

I agree with the points made against a new journal above.

I think there's an argument for less ME/CFS journals rather than more. The IACFS/ME journal is, I think, doing more harm than good, publishing poor quality papers that can't readily be accepted elsewhere, including a paper by Crawley. There isn't evidence of good editorial control. I think it should be shut down. Instead, IACFS/ME could provide support for young ME/CFS researchers, offering mentoring, informal peer review and networking, to help them publish high quality papers in high impact journals.