A note on scientific peer-review as regards the controversial @JAMAInternalMed study on #LongCovid
I submitted a rapid response, which JAMA declined to publish
In so doing, I stumbled upon a couple of key issues about how the review of papers published there works
🧵
I submitted a rapid response, which JAMA declined to publish
In so doing, I stumbled upon a couple of key issues about how the review of papers published there works
🧵
https://twitter.com/calirunnerdoc/status/1478388975937150985
These issues can help explain how the very controversial paper in question might have been published in a medical journal of good standing despite its obvious shortcomings and scientific inconsistencies
Long 🧵 with some technical comments about academic peer review
Long 🧵 with some technical comments about academic peer review
You, basically, submit your paper via an online platform. One key point is that you can list, in the system, a good number of reviewers of your choice by name. Reviewers are experts who will read your manuscript, and suggest the journal whether to publish it or not.
It's obvious that, at this stage, you will select people who have a scientific perspective similar to yours. It's not guaranteed, I guess, the journal will send your manuscript to review exactly to the people you suggested, but I presume this can happen!
You are also allowed, in the online system, to select "negative" reviewers i.e. people you don't want your manuscript being sent to. You will select at this point, obviously, researchers who have very different ideas from yourself! This is to minimize the risks of rejection
You can also select, in the online submission system, the specific section of the journal where you would like your paper to be published in. You may remember we discussed on Twitter that @JAMAInternalMed has a section called "Less is More". This section |
"Less is More" in JAMA focuses on ways to reduce the burden of patients and medical treatment for healthcare system. You bet you are allowed to select --- as you submit your paper online --- you want it to be considered for this specific section of the journal!
All in all, I think the very same way the submission system in JAMA Internal Medicine works, may allow some low-quality research to pass the external (outside of the journal) peer-review process, and get published --- despite this research being of poor quality in itself
I have to add that these are just my own reflections on the academic peer review system, with particular regard to this specific journal. I certainly can't prove or guarantee that the JAMA paper in question got published because of these issues with the peer review system
I do think, however, that the way science works nowadays --- can be conductive to the production of suboptimal research in some cases: gatekeeping, "friendships" among certain researchers, and the structure of peer review favour those who are well connected in the system
I add JAMA declined to publish because they had already received other scientific letters criticising the use of serology in the study, so there should be more debate on that soon! Hopefully! ⭐
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
