ME/CFS Skeptic
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
ME Action posted this message on social media:
I don't get it: 13 September that's like next month. Who will be able to write a decent paper in a period of 1 month? Why would reputable scientists stop what they are doing now to try to make the deadline for this special issue of this journal (impact factor 1)?
I've asked ME Action for more information because I don't see anything about this special issue on ME/CFS on the journal's website (they speak of a special issue on Robotics for Occupational Ergonomics). https://www.iospress.nl/journal/work/
I was, however, intrigued, thinking that a review of randomized trials in CFS that used employment as an outcome could be interesting. Treatments such as GET an CBT are so often described as rehabilitative treatments that outsiders will get the impression that these treatments help to get ME/CFS patients back to work. It might be useful to get a nice, clean overview of this. But then, is it worth trying to do it for this journal on such a short notice?
More in the full article: https://www.meaction.net/2019/08/07...ts-submit-a-manuscript-on-me-to-work-journal/"Researchers, patients and clinicians are invited to submit a manuscript for consideration in a special issue of WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation (IOS Press), which will focus exclusively on the area of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Submissions are due Sept. 13, 2019."
I don't get it: 13 September that's like next month. Who will be able to write a decent paper in a period of 1 month? Why would reputable scientists stop what they are doing now to try to make the deadline for this special issue of this journal (impact factor 1)?
I've asked ME Action for more information because I don't see anything about this special issue on ME/CFS on the journal's website (they speak of a special issue on Robotics for Occupational Ergonomics). https://www.iospress.nl/journal/work/
I was, however, intrigued, thinking that a review of randomized trials in CFS that used employment as an outcome could be interesting. Treatments such as GET an CBT are so often described as rehabilitative treatments that outsiders will get the impression that these treatments help to get ME/CFS patients back to work. It might be useful to get a nice, clean overview of this. But then, is it worth trying to do it for this journal on such a short notice?