BBC News: Row over British Journal of Psychiatry abortion paper saw panel quit

[Andy]

"An independent panel resigned in a row over controversial research about the impact of abortion on the mental health of women, BBC News can reveal.

The research, which is still being used in US legal cases about limiting access to abortion, was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, in 2011.

Last year the panel, which was set up to investigate complaints about the paper, recommended it be withdrawn.

But journal-owner, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, overruled it.

The Royal College said the work had already been fully investigated.

However, BBC Newsnight understands all three panel members, and two other members of the journal's editorial board, resigned in protest. They have called into question the journal's editorial independence."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66249015

 

[Andy]

"The 2011 paper is a systematic review conducted by US psychologist, Prof Priscilla Coleman. It concludes that women who've had an abortion have an 81% increased risk of developing mental health problems."


"When Prof Coleman's paper was first published in 2011, 10 letters were sent to the British Journal of Psychiatry criticising the quality of the research. Two called for its retraction."


"A review published three months later in December 2011, co-authored by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, also found that methodological problems brought into question the paper's results and conclusions."


"In 2022, with the research influencing women's healthcare in the US, some of the same scientists wrote again to request the work be retracted.

The British Journal of Psychiatry then formed an independent panel, which spent four months assessing the complaints and ultimately recommended the paper should be retracted. However, that never happened."


"A spokesperson for the Royal College of Psychiatrists did not address questions about whether the threat of legal action had influenced its decision.

They said: "After careful consideration, given the distance in time since the original article was published, the widely available public debate on the paper - including the letters of complaint already available alongside the article online, and the fact that the article has already been subject to a full investigation - it has been decided to reject the request for the article to be retracted.""

 

[RedFox]

Now imagine how many papers are egregiously bad methodology are out there, but are challenged by nobody because their subject isn't one of enormous public interest.

 

[Sean]

Rule One of Psych: Never admit error.

The profession is out of control. It has gone rogue on methodology and ethics.

 

[rvallee]

After careful consideration, given the distance in time since the original article was published

Clearly the strategy. Delay long enough and you can simply say that it's all in the past, even if you are responsible for that delay in the first place. As if the past doesn't affect the present, I guess is what they're bizarrely arguing.

And it's not as if 12 years is actually that much time. What a bunch of nonsense. The idea that science is subject to review and is self-correcting is simply false. Egos and careers above all else.

In related news, the president of Stanford university just quit his post over falsified data in research he published decades ago. Rejected it all the whole time. Probably called it a witch hunt, too. And it's a student newspaper who pulled it off. It's the same everywhere, the bubble of academia has become a shield for accountability.

 

[Haveyoutriedyoga]

Perhaps there is some CBT or an antidepressent that can adjust their attitude towards accepting conflict and committing to shared decision making, specifically for the personality type 'P' who seem to be prone to inflexibility.