BMJ Peer review of Wilshire et al re-analysis of PACE paper

How is the review not the academic version of this?

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1011265010860003334

https://twitter.com/user/status/1011266768977956865


Please can someone make sure the review is shared as widely as possible on Facebook?

 

Has anyone done this? I have a lot of Facebook friends who have ME and used the Facebook search button for "BMJ review"and separately "BMJ reviewer" and only one result came up but that was a private post so can't be shared. There could be other pages or people who have posted this of course as that was just a search through my Facebook friends.

 

Maybe that's one for @Andy to post from S4ME's account?

 

I would like to publicly call on my colleague Fiona Godlee to provide the authors of this paper with a fulsome apology. The reviewer and the journal have made complete fools of themselves but an apology is still due. And judging from last Thursday at least 25 Members of Parliament would agree.

 

Should we notify her on twitter ?

 

Well, someone could try pigeon post but twitter might be quicker these days!

 

She doesn't seem to be too active on twitter, but just noticed her most recent tweets were promoting a joint event between BMJ and Swiss Re on the Science and Politics of Food.

Doesn't bode well.

 

OK, I'll look to get to it tomorrow. I also have plans to add the info above to MEpedia as well.

 

I suppose that coincidences sometimes innocently occur.

 

http://me-pedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ#Peer_review_controversy - First draft, feedback welcome.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1011753448008757248

 

Still haven't seen anything. Nothing on the Science for ME page even though some posts have been made. @Andy

 

just wondering did anyone see the original Lancet peer review of the PACE trial?

 

Don’t think so. We know it was fast track (which I think was over two weeks?) peer review and we are sure or almost sure (?) that Knoop or Bleijenberg, both CBT fanatics, were one of the reviewers. They co-authored an editorial that went out with it.

 

What I would particularly like to know is who he reviewed the Psychological Medicine recovery paper.
I think that's the PACE Trial paper which could justify being retracted the most, given how it completely abandoned the recovery criteria in the published protocol and came up with ridiculous recovery criteria that were lower than entry-level criteria for the study.