An independent assessment panel has rejected a demand by a prominent researcher that TheBMJ retract two controversial articles or blog posts. The report largely exonerates the journal’s editors from any wrongdoing.
As previously reported, Rory Collins, a prominent researcher and head of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration, had demanded that TheBMJ retract two content articles that had been highly essential of statins. Although TheBMJ issued a correction for both papers for inaccurately citing an earlier publication and therefore overstating the incidence of adverse results of statins, this response did not satisfy Collins. He repeatedly demanded that the journal issue a complete retraction of the articles or blog posts, prompting TheBMJ’s editor-in-chief, Fiona Godlee, to convene an outdoors panel of experts to overview the issue.
The report of the independent statins evaluation panel exonerates TheBMJ from wrongdoing and explained the controversial articles ought to not be retracted:
The panel have been unanimous in their choice that the two papers do not meet any of the criteria for retraction. The error did not compromise the principal arguments being manufactured in both of the papers. These arguments involve interpretations of accessible proof and have been deemed to be inside of the variety of sensible opinion amid people who are debating the proper use of statins.
In fact, the panel was critical of Collins for refusing to submit a published response to the articles or blog posts:
The panel mentioned with concern that in spite of the Editor’s repeated requests that Rory Collins ought to place his criticisms in writing as a quick response, a letter to the editor or as a stand-alone write-up, all his submissions were obviously marked ‘Not for Publication’. The panel considered this unlikely to encourage open scientific dialogue in the tradition of the BMJ.
The report did uncover some minor deficiencies in the editorial procedure at TheBMJ and stated that the delay from publication of the content articles in October 2013 to the correction in Might 2014 was as well long. The panel explained that the journal “should put into action a significant event audit… to try out and recognize what would want to have been in location to guarantee that the correction was produced in a much more timely vogue.”
They also stated that press releases should be used “cautiously” for viewpoint pieces about controversial subjects.
The panel did not express an view about the hazards and positive aspects of statins:
It is crucial to note that the panel has not been asked to pass judgment on the dangers and advantages of statins per se, nor on the suitable use of statin medicine in lower danger people. Instead the panel has been asked to decide no matter whether there are adequate grounds to need retraction of a single or each of the content articles from the scientific literature. The panel has been at pains not to take sides and not to assistance a single view at the expense of one more.
Panel member Harlan Krumholz offered the following comment:
I had the privilege of serving with a exceptional set of authorities who took the charge seriously and invested a great number of hours investigating the issue and deliberating above the recommendation. The panel did not weigh in on the concern of the chance of statins, but judged the merits of the get in touch with for retraction. In the finish there was minor doubt that the view pieces in the BMJ did not meet criteria for retraction and the correction that had been created was adequate.
No Retraction For You! Evaluation Panel Exonerates Medical Journal In Statin Kerfuffle
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder