Caroline Struthers' correspondence and blog on the Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome, 2017 and 2019, Larun et al.

Caroline Struthers said:
So Cochrane will not have to justify its non-investigation of my concerns to COPE, as COPE are not going to review it. What a surprise! I can still ask for a response from the Trustees as to why they have refused to investigate my complaint about Karla Soares-Weiser

View attachment 20193
Click to expand...
Have written to COPE, because I have an important work deadline, and am going on holiday this evening...makes sense right?!

Hi there

Your reply doesn’t make sense

COPE’s earlier review of the editorial process regarding investigating serious errors in reviews is irrelevant to this concern. Please can you not conflate this earlier and different complaint with the one I have presented to you. I have clarified how they are not related to each other.

My concern is not about the editorial process followed when investigating a concern about a serious error in a review, but about the actions of the Editor in Chief in allowing authors to ignore clear instructions to amend the wording of the article.

Where in the whistle blowing flowchart does it acknowledge that the journal can choose not to further pursue the matter without explanation to the complainant? There was no reason given when they communicated they would not investigate my concern.

Please confirm that journals do not have to give any explanation for not investigating a legitimate and well-evidenced concern to meet the expectations of COPE?

Best wishes

Caroline
 
Lord. I have only just caught up with this.

I posted this elsewhere, but I recently complained to COPE (Publication Ethics People) about Cochrane refusing to investigate my "whistleblower" complaint about Karla Soares-Weiser's negligence when publishing the 2019 version. When I addressed it to Catherine Spencer, she initially said she would investigate, and then decided she wouldn't, giving no valid reason, and sending a similarly rude email saying the matter was closed.

This is contrary to the COPE guidance here https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/respond-whistleblowers-concerns-cope-flowchart.pdf

When I wrote to COPE, first said that they wouldn't raise it with Cochrane because it was the same as a previous complaint I made. It wasn't the same complaint at all, as I pointed out, twice. When I wrote back for the second time querying their flawed logic, I copied Catherine Spencer in, and they said they would write to Cochrane after all. This was on 8 October.

Dear Ms Struthers,

To follow up on our correspondence, I have consulted with the member of the Facilitation and Integrity subcommittee and I am writing to let you know that we will approach the journal for comments on your concerns about the handling of your complaint.

With best wishes,
 
Thanks, Caroline, you have been doing a valuable job with your letters. I think the responses to us add to the picture. I think we may want to pursue other avenues such as Cope and the Charity Commission too, and likely will be coming to you for advice. We haven't decided on the next stage yet.
 
Last edited:
Hutan said:
Are the UK offices of Cochrane the only target with respect to challenging their actions as a charity?

Is there scope to query the Norwegian branch's performance as a charity? Or another branch?

Is that up to date, I forget which university was to be their new home. Perhaps we can make people at that university aware?


@Caroline Struthers - do you think a complaint from us (or 50 ME/CFS organisations) could achieve anything?
Click to expand...
My latest complaint was about the actions of Karla Soares-Weiser in letting the authors (employed/managed by NIPH's Atle Fretheim) ignore Gordon Guyatt's instruction to explicitly say that Exercise had no clinically relevant effect. It was my way of re-framing the complaint about mistakes in the review to focus on her responsibility for letting the mistakes remain in the review. I don't know what the next step should be to be honest...
 
rvallee said:
An IAG who, as best as we can tell, has zero powers. The promised updated review was not accepted by any working group, it is merely advisory. Even if it gets accepted and published, it would be, what, an independent review, competing for attention with the current one?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the new review, if it is ever produced by the writing group and advised by the IAG will then go through the peer review process normal for Cochrane reviews, and if it passes peer review and is accepted by whichever Cochrane editors are tasked with deciding, it should be published as a direct replacement of the 2019 review in the Cochrane Library.
But there are plenty of potential hazards along that route which might trip it up so we get stuck with the 2019 review for a very long time.
 
I don't understand why the complaint from the pro-review people was investigated and mine, also very detailed, about Karla Soares-Weiser wasn't. I will contact COPE who said they were writing to Cochrane to ask this.
 
Hutan said:
This seems to be a very important point. Caroline, can you remind us what Cochrane's response to your complaint was?
Click to expand...
The CEO initially said she was seeking advice on how to investigate it independently. And then suddenly she said they weren't going to investigate at all and the subject was closed.
 
Trish said:
Thanks @Caroline Struthers. If I understand it correctly, Cope is telling Cochrane that they can't just say we've decided not to investigate your complaint, they have to follow the process on the flow chart and have procedure set up to follow. Since we have submitted a 5 part complaint about the editor in chief's actions and policies, they presumbably have to follow this process and inform us of the outcome on each of our 5 complaints. What I'm not clear about is whether they have to give the reasons for their decisions or inform us who or which committee was involved in the decisions.
Click to expand...
They are asking Cochrane to explain the process they went through to decide not to investigate, and explain how it corresponds to the COPE flowchart (which obviously it doesn't!) Who knows what Cochrane will come up with...
 
Science For ME said:
reducing the chances of misinterpreting the current review
Click to expand...

If the Editor in Chief had enforced the advice of Gordon Guyatt to emphasise in the text of the review that the evidence indicated that exercise had "no important effect", then at least the review would be less likely to be misinterpreted. This is the part of my complaint I am still actively pursuing, which I consider as publication misconduct

However, my complaint was originally headlined around the two ratings errors rather than her ignoring Guyatt's advice on changing the text. I don't think I've made this shift in my emphasis clear enough so they still fob me off saying they have investigated and there are no serious errors in the review.

To "reduce the chance of misinterpreting the current review" it would be better to edit the review and add that caveat of "no important effect" to the plain language summary and/or the discussion, as advised by Guyatt, rather than add an editorial note. But I guess the authors would refuse to allow any further editing of the review itself. If that were the case, Cochrane would surely be within their rights to withdraw the review for "author insubordination" or whatever the technical term is. Why on earth do these authors have the power over Cochrane's Editor in Chief and also, it seems, the Trustees?
 
This is my latest "we're not going to do anything" letter from COPE. I plan to challenge them on stating that the Trustees were "independent" when they made the decision not to investigate my allegation of publication misconduct. I have asked Cochrane how to make a complaint about the Trustees (who spookily both stood down at the same time, although Tracey Howe's term of office had not yet expired). The interim chair (Jordi Pardo Pardo) is a nice person. I have tried in the past to explain to him how Cochrane has messed up on this issue, but he is a true Cochrane belieber, so not sure he will be more helpful than any of his predecessors.

Dear Ms Struthers,

I am writing to you regarding the concerns you raised to COPE’s attention in relation to the Cochrane’ handling of a complaint you raised about the editor of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

As you are aware, we contacted the publisher for comments on your concerns about the editor's handling of post-publication concerns about two systematic reviews published in the journal. We received information from the publisher on their process to review your complaint, we thank the publisher for their response to our requests for comments on this matter.
The publisher indicated that Cochrane has a documented process to handle complaints, and they followed their process for handling your complaint. The complaint was raised to the two Chairs of the Governing Board, who are independent from the editor of the journal. They completed an initial assessment of the complaint and reached a decision not to pursue a formal review as they considered that the complaint overlapped in scope with your earlier complaint previously reviewed by Cochrane.

COPE’s review is strictly focused on procedural matters and based on the information that we have received, we consider that the publisher followed an adequate process to handle your complaint. The COPE Core Practices - which replaced the COPE Code of Conduct several years ago - outline that journals should have a documented process to handle complaints. Based on the information we have received, Cochrane has a documented and public summary of their process for complaints and followed this in relation to the matter you raised. The determination on whether to pursue a full review of the complaint falls within the remit of decision making and beyond the scope of our review. We have no advice for the publisher beyond the steps they have already taken and thus, we are closing our review of this matter.

Per our framework, we have developed a summary report of the case which we are attaching to this email.

Thank you for raising this matter to the attention of COPE.

With best wishes,
 
Well that sure is one way to handle complaints. First: ignore a complaint. Then when a further complaint is made about the initial complaint having been ignored, say that it's outside of scope because it was already handled.

Cochrane sure does have a documented and public summary of their process for complaints, the problem is that they don't actually apply it. But I guess that means that Cochrane's trustees were chosen well in that they are trusted to shut their mouths about such pesky issues as, uh, doing whatever the hell they want.

Showing once more how rules, processes, even laws, are just words and without enforcement, they matter exactly as much as sacred oaths and pinky promises.
 
I wrote to Catherine Spencer, CEO of Cochrane yesterday. Copying in COPE and Jordi Pardo Pardo (interim chair of Trustees). It was in response to her writing telling me to use the "internal" complaints resolution procedure to complain about the Trustees when I am not part of the Cochrane community. I forgot to copy in Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert, the Publisher (Wiley), so I will forward this to her today. And maybe also the IAG address. There's been no January update from Hilda...

7 February 2024

Dear Catherine (cc Jordi Pardo Pardo, COPE)

I have made allegations of misconduct, firstly against the Editor in Chief of the Cochrane Library. And now, additionally, I want to make an allegation of misconduct against the former trustees for refusing to independently investigate my allegation of misconduct.

COPE makes it clear journals should “have a clearly described process for handling allegations, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher’s attention. Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication. Policies should include how to handle allegations from whistleblowers” https://publicationethics.org/misconduct

The link you sent me (https://community.cochrane.org/orga...nd-supporters/complaints-resolution-procedure) is for members and supporters of Cochrane. This procedure is not appropriate to me. I am neither a member or a supporter of Cochrane. I have just deactivated my account which I was not aware I still had.

Cochrane currently has no policy on handling allegations of publication misconduct from people outside its membership or supporter base.

Please can you give me a clearly described process of how you will handle my allegations of misconduct, as stipulated by COPE.

Best wishes

Caroline


From: Catherine Spencer
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 9:15 AM
To: Caroline Struthers
Subject: Re: Complaint about Trustees

Dear Caroline

Please find a link to our complaints process. Please use this to make your complaint.
https://community.cochrane.org/orga...nd-supporters/complaints-resolution-procedure
Kind regards

Catherine

From: Catherine Spencer
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 1:27 PM
To: Caroline Struthers
Subject: FW: Complaint about Trustees

Dear Caroline
Thank you for your message. I am confirming how you can make a complaint about the former Trustees you name below.
I will come back to you when I have an answer.
Kind regards
Catherine

9 January 2024 to admin@cochrane.org

Subject: Complaint about Trustees

I am writing in a personal capacity and not as a representative of my employer.

Please can you let me know how to make a complaint about former charity trustees Tracey Howe and Catherine Marshall?

They are still listed as Trustees on the Charity Commission website although they both stepped down last year. Please update. https://register-of-charities.chari...ity-search/-/charity-details/1045921/trustees

Best wishes

Caroline
 
Caroline Struthers said:
I wrote to Catherine Spencer, CEO of Cochrane yesterday. Copying in COPE and Jordi Pardo Pardo (interim chair of Trustees). It was in response to her writing telling me to use the "internal" complaints resolution procedure to complain about the Trustees when I am not part of the Cochrane community. I forgot to copy in Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert, the Publisher (Wiley), so I will forward this to her today. And maybe also the IAG address. There's been no January update from Hilda...
Click to expand...
In short, the point I'm making is that The Cochrane Library, which is a profit-making journal published by Wiley, has no procedure for dealing with allegations of publication misconduct made by people who are not members or supporters of the Cochrane Collaboration, a charity.
 
Short update re my un-investigated allegation of misconduct about Karla Soares-Weiser.

As Catherine Spencer hadn't replied to my email, I emailed Jordi Pardo Pardo (interim board chair) to follow up yesterday saying the complaints procedure I was directed to by Catherine was for members and supporters of Cochrane and therefore not applicable to me.
https://community.cochrane.org/orga...nd-supporters/complaints-resolution-procedure

I also asked him why the "whistleblower policy" said to be in development four and a half years ago had not been published. He wrote to say that I should use that complaints procedure anyway. As he didn't answer my question about the missing whistleblower policy, I wrote back to ask again about it. No reply as yet. Yesterday, I also submitted another expression of concern to COPE about Cochrane not having followed their own procedure for dealing with my allegation, or if they did, not informing me that Soares-Weiser had refused to engage with it. And also that there was still no whistleblower policy, in breach of COPE guidelines on how to handle allegations of misconduct https://publicationethics.org/misconduct
 
Caroline Struthers said:
Short update re my un-investigated allegation of misconduct about Karla Soares-Weiser.

As Catherine Spencer hadn't replied to my email, I emailed Jordi Pardo Pardo (interim board chair) to follow up yesterday saying the complaints procedure I was directed to by Catherine was for members and supporters of Cochrane and therefore not applicable to me.
https://community.cochrane.org/orga...nd-supporters/complaints-resolution-procedure

I also asked him why the "whistleblower policy" said to be in development four and a half years ago had not been published. He wrote to say that I should use that complaints procedure anyway. As he didn't answer my question about the missing whistleblower policy, I wrote back to ask again about it. No reply as yet. Yesterday, I also submitted another expression of concern to COPE about Cochrane not having followed their own procedure for dealing with my allegation, or if they did, not informing me that Soares-Weiser had refused to engage with it. And also that there was still no whistleblower policy, in breach of COPE guidelines on how to handle allegations of misconduct https://publicationethics.org/misconduct
Click to expand...
Doesn't Cochrane have some board or something to deal with consumer complaints? They make a big deal out of pretending to engage with the public. Or is it really all just pretend? Because really there is no independent process here to deal with complaints about the people at the top. Or about anyone. What a dysfunctional organization.
 
rvallee said:
Doesn't Cochrane have some board or something to deal with consumer complaints? They make a big deal out of pretending to engage with the public. Or is it really all just pretend? Because really there is no independent process here to deal with complaints about the people at the top. Or about anyone. What a dysfunctional organization.
Click to expand...
No, there is no independent process to deal with complaints about people at the top. They are currently trying to recruit a new chair of trustees. (https://community.cochrane.org/news/governing-board-chair-recruitment-update) Jordi Pardo Pardo is an interim chair. The previous co-chairs Tracey Howe and Catherine Marshall both left abruptly last year, shortly after they decreed that my allegation of misconduct was not going to be investigated, and after the Charity Commission wrote to them reminding them of their duties as Trustees to ensure Cochrane's publications were scientifically rigorous.
 
Is it me, or do you think COPE is getting a bit desperate?

From: COPE
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2024 am
To: Caroline Struthers
Subject: Concerns raised to COPE regarding Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dear Caroline,

I am writing in relation to your latest submission to COPE about Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

We have looked over the submission and note that it relates to the complaints procedure in place at Cochrane to handle complaints about staff or Cochrane group members, and not to matters related to publications in the journal. As a result, the matter you submitted does not relate to publication ethics but rather to governance at Cochrane. Such matters are beyond the scope of what the Facilitation and Integrity subcommittee can comment on and thus, we cannot review this matter.

Sincerely,

***

From: Me
Sent: Sunday February 18, 2024 pm
To: COPE

Dear ***

Cochrane produces a journal, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. I made an allegation that the Editor in Chief of that journal acted unethically in relation to the publication of an article in that journal. This is an allegation of publication misconduct, which is covered by COPE’s code of practice for journals. https://publicationethics.org/misconduct

You rightly say that Cochrane, whose staff include the Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, has no procedure for investigating allegations of publication misconduct, despite it being a Core Practice for all journals set out by your organisation. Is this acceptable? Please ask the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee to comment on this or explain why it is acceptable and/or beyond their scope.

With best wishes

Caroline
 
Caroline Struthers said:
Is it me, or do you think COPE is getting a bit desperate?

From: COPE
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2024 am
To: Caroline Struthers
Subject: Concerns raised to COPE regarding Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dear Caroline,

I am writing in relation to your latest submission to COPE about Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

We have looked over the submission and note that it relates to the complaints procedure in place at Cochrane to handle complaints about staff or Cochrane group members, and not to matters related to publications in the journal. As a result, the matter you submitted does not relate to publication ethics but rather to governance at Cochrane. Such matters are beyond the scope of what the Facilitation and Integrity subcommittee can comment on and thus, we cannot review this matter.

Sincerely,

***

From: Me
Sent: Sunday February 18, 2024 pm
To: COPE

Dear ***

Cochrane produces a journal, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. I made an allegation that the Editor in Chief of that journal acted unethically in relation to the publication of an article in that journal. This is an allegation of publication misconduct, which is covered by COPE’s code of practice for journals. https://publicationethics.org/misconduct

You rightly say that Cochrane, whose staff include the Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, has no procedure for investigating allegations of publication misconduct, despite it being a Core Practice for all journals set out by your organisation. Is this acceptable? Please ask the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee to comment on this or explain why it is acceptable and/or beyond their scope.

With best wishes

Caroline
Click to expand...

Ever more Kafkaesque.
 
Peter Trewhitt said:
Ever more Kafkaesque.
Click to expand...
Lesser known in the anglo world, but this is so like The 12 tasks of Asterix / Les 12 travaux d'Asterix. Everyone seems to be suffering from notmydepartmentitis.

So, who is in charge of handling complaints about COPE not properly handling complaints about Cochrane not properly handling complaints about not properly handling complaints?
image.jpg
Click to expand...
 
rvallee said:
Lesser known in the anglo world, but this is so like The 12 tasks of Asterix / Les 12 travaux d'Asterix. Everyone seems to be suffering from notmydepartmentitis.

So, who is in charge of handling complaints about COPE not properly handling complaints about Cochrane not properly handling complaints about not properly handling complaints?
Click to expand...

Definitely a more apposite literary reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom