Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Andy, Jan 3, 2018.
Very good article, with a lot of details.
Hypocrites and cowards.
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
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully soon QMUL can be classified as
(this is not a death tread but a metaphor ).
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).
They might have to share prior to publishing now, whereas before they merely had to promise to share in the event that anyone asked.
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.
PACE supporters huffed and puffed, and PLOS One backed down. They're supporting the violation of their own policy, basically.
Thank you Val. What a bunch of corrupt cronies. So over a world that supports and encourages this way of being.
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.
I'm starting to think the BPS people have photos of everyone else wearing tutus and having sex with animals or something
That is correct, Plos one policy only apply to papers submitted after March 3, 2014
Pace was published by PLOS ONE on August 1, 2012
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.
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.
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.
The ICO are still considering the matter. I'll let everyone know once a decision is made.
Probably not quite the image which PLOS One editors are trying to cultivate
Separate names with a comma.