British Journal of Sports Medicine invites submissions addressing PACE limitations

Indigophoton

Indigophoton

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
In response to a request on twitter, following the Montreal conference, the BJSM has invited papers (subject to the usual peer review) addressing issues with the PACE trial.

Here's the full conversation for context (and for those not on twitter),






British Journal of Sports Medicine (BJSM) is a multimedia portal for authoritative original research, systematic reviews, consensus statements and timely debate in sport and exercise medicine (SEM) as well as clinical education and implementation success stories. BJSM’s web, print, video and audio material serves the international sport and exercise medicine community with the journal recognised as a leader in sports medicine social media: @BJSM_BMJ, podcasts, a blog and now its own app available via iTunes and Google Play. BJSM serves 25 sports medicine and sports physiotherapy societies who have over 12,000 members.

Impact Factor
6.557

Click to expand...
 
Trish said:
How about submitting the Science for ME Pace Briefing Document?
https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-pace-briefing-document.3140/

@Tom Kindlon, @Graham, @Sean ?
Click to expand...
I agree with this, if there are no problems re @Graham's post above.

I have just re-read the paper, and think it is very effective and very important, because it is what I think of as a 'bridging' paper - bridges the gap between highly scientific papers, and lightweight 'explanatory' articles. This paper goes into enough depth to be meaningful to scientists and doctors and hopefully motivate them to dig deeper, whilst also being digestible to people less qualified (including nurses maybe, ambulance crews, etc) and maybe motivate to want to better understand - people such as myself, but who currently have no real understanding or awareness of what is going on. It is also very good at explaining the 'why' and not just the 'what'. Spreading the word to an ever-wider demographic.
 
It’s nice the journal is accepting papers with more educated viewpoints, but at what point would they do something like publish an expression of concern?

It’s a known problem in science that even when there are later papers moving things forward, earlier erroneous papers continue to get cited.

Is there some systematic way outdated studies can be flagged up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom