BMJ - Pledges for the new year (open science and involvement of patients)

[Kalliope]

I thought the last paragraph here was interesting.

BMJ: Elizabeth Loder, head of research - Pledges for the new year

As for The BMJ, our New Year’s pledge is an extension of our commitment to open science and involvement of patients and the public in all stages of the research enterprise. “Research is of no use unless it gets to the people who need to use it,” says Chris Whitty, chief scientific adviser for England’s Department of Health.2 We agree, and as of 1 January we are asking authors of research papers to describe plans for dissemination of their findings to research participants and other relevant communities. We want to know how patients and the public were, or will be, involved in choosing the methods and developing plans to share research findings, and when and how dissemination has been or will be done.

 

[Skycloud]

But they don't want to know if 'patients and other relevant communities' notice problems with what they publish.

edit to fix predictive text

 

[Amw66]

I am in danger of falling off my seat trying to stifle laughter.

If this is a serious proposal then it could be a gamechanger

 

[Sly Saint]

a 'seasonal' message to Fiona Godlee

 

[Barry]

Actions not words, is what comes to mind.

 

[Peter T]

Is this a signal for @dave30th to write another email to the BMJ?

 

[Trish]

We agree, and as of 1 January we are asking authors of research papers to describe plans for dissemination of their findings to research participants and other relevant communities. We want to know how patients and the public were, or will be, involved in choosing the methods and developing plans to share research findings, and when and how dissemination has been or will be done.

But they don't want to know if 'patients and other relevant communities' notice problems with what they publish.

That struck me too. It's a very complacent assumption that the research they publish is of such high quality that patient and public involvement is seen as top down dissemination of information, not as a two way process where we plebs can actually question whether the research is worth publicising.

 

[rvallee]

Actions not words, is what comes to mind.

Considering Richard Horton has harshly criticized many times the very problems that plague PACE and other psychosomatic research yet still keeps PACE published leaves a lot of doubt that actions will match words here. I dare say this is a pretty good example of actual virtue signaling given BMJ's own numerous flaws and their refusal to apply their own rules to their own work when it applies to psychosomatic research.

Even Sharpe loves to retweet stuff that basically argue he is a boob incapable of seeing irreparable flaws in his own research without a hint of self-reflection because he interprets it backwards.

Hollow words from shallow minds until we see actual rules being implemented, without exceptions carved out specifically for conditions they just don't like.

 

[Sean]

#AllTrialsExceptPACE&BPS