1. Guest, the 'News In Brief' post for w/c 12th Nov can be read here.
    Dismiss Notice

Blog: "The PACE PLOS One data will not be released and the article won’t be retracted", James Coyne

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Andy, Jan 3, 2018.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    30,321
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/blo...e-released-and-the-article-won-t-be-retracted
     
  2. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    2,211
    Very good article, with a lot of details.
     
  3. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    9,193
    Hypocrites and cowards.
     
  4. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    30,321
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    In case anybody wants to figure out if PLOS One are breaking their own rules - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability

    The most pertinent section would be this I guess
     
  5. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    2,211
    Technically the PACE authors could be classified as endangered species, they are a rare breed afterall.

    The data might spell an end to their era of lies, deception and pseudoscience.
     
    Barry, Joh, Valentijn and 6 others like this.
  6. Seven

    Seven Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    442
    What I understand (not understand but gathered from the claims) is that the PACE trial paper was submitted before the DATA rules were implemented for our misfortune. So they are not required per this outline.
     
  7. Valentijn

    Valentijn Not a moderator

    Messages:
    2,275
    Likes Received:
    13,202
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Yes, but mostly just profiteers. The researchers are the journal's paying customers. Making money is more important to PLOS One than their stated values. Upholding their values might mean that fewer people will publish if they know they'll have to share their data as promised, whereas ignoring that requirement will make their journal more attractive to a larger number of people. Of course, they'll flush away their reputation, but that doesn't really matter as long as they're making a profit.

    The initial PACE trial wasn't covered by MRC rules, from what I recall, due to the timing, but some data had to be released anyhow due to FOIA requirements. But Coyne's blog post is about a later analysis published under PLOS One's requirements to share data, which PLOS One is now ignoring.
     
  8. Joh

    Joh Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    5,575
    Location:
    Germany
    :laugh:

    Hopefully soon QMUL can be classified as
    (this is not a death tread but a metaphor :)).
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,296
    Likes Received:
    19,129
    I think @Seven was saying that the PLOS rules have changed since the PACE paper was submitted. They still should have shared the underlying data under the old rules, but they were slightly different rules to the current ones (I've forgotten exactly how they've changed).
     
  10. Valentijn

    Valentijn Not a moderator

    Messages:
    2,275
    Likes Received:
    13,202
    Location:
    Netherlands
    They might have to share prior to publishing now, whereas before they merely had to promise to share in the event that anyone asked.
     
  11. Allele

    Allele Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    9,125
    Am very unwell, can someone TL;DR please? I don't understand how the data will not be released if it is a condition of publication.
     
    Luther Blissett likes this.
  12. Valentijn

    Valentijn Not a moderator

    Messages:
    2,275
    Likes Received:
    13,202
    Location:
    Netherlands
    PACE supporters huffed and puffed, and PLOS One backed down. They're supporting the violation of their own policy, basically.
     
  13. Allele

    Allele Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    9,125
    Thank you Val. What a bunch of corrupt cronies. So over a world that supports and encourages this way of being.
     
  14. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,296
    Likes Received:
    19,129
    I wonder what would happen now if someone tried to jump through all their hoops? Aren't they telling someone else (@JohnTheJack ?) that now White has retired they'd need to hire someone new to access the data or something?

    I wonder if there's a researcher/PhD student at an academic institution who might be willing to do that? There were limitations of that analysis done with the FOI data (seemingly of no practical importance), and requesting the full PACE data set in order to dot every i could be a worthwhile side project for someone.
     
  15. Allele

    Allele Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    9,125
    I'm starting to think the BPS people have photos of everyone else wearing tutus and having sex with animals or something :bag:
     
  16. Seven

    Seven Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    442
    That is correct, Plos one policy only apply to papers submitted after March 3, 2014
    http://me-pedia.org/wiki/PLOS_ONE

    Pace was published by PLOS ONE on August 1, 2012
     
  17. Seven

    Seven Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    442
    The data policy was implemented on March 3, 2014. Any paper submitted before that date will not have a data availability statement. However for all manuscripts submitted or published before this date, data must be available upon reasonable request.[3]
    http://me-pedia.org/wiki/PLOS_ONE

    Maybe we need to ask PLOS one "data must be available upon reasonable request" what is the appropriate way to request this data. Pressure by formal channels.
     
  18. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    9,193
    Probably the best way to get the data is to convince a group of senior researchers from outside the PACE-BPS school, with rock solid research and ethics credentials, from different reputable institutions, and different countries, to make a collective application for it. (All of it, not selected bits. Everything used by the PACE authors in their original PLoS paper.)

    Like to see PLoS deny that. It would be a huge scandal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  19. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    The ICO are still considering the matter. I'll let everyone know once a decision is made.
     
    sea, Solstice, Dolphin and 16 others like this.
  20. Valentijn

    Valentijn Not a moderator

    Messages:
    2,275
    Likes Received:
    13,202
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Probably not quite the image which PLOS One editors are trying to cultivate :jawdrop:
     

Share This Page