Welcome Retraction Decision from the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, and Hopefully Future Policy Revisions to Be Announced

I have posted two times (here and here) about the deeply misguided decision by the editorial management team of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics not to retract a fraudulent, obviously "antivaxx" propaganda piece, article. On invitation, I have also summarised my opinion on this matter at the Daily Nous philosophy blog. In all of these posts, I have strongly underscored the otherwise very promising track and strong reputation of this journal, the importance of this for the critical place of global health and developing country perspectives in bioethics scholarship, and my strong wish for a revised course by the IJME editorial management. It is therefore with the greatest satisfaction I have been reached by the news that the same management has now revised its judgement, and decided to retract the article in question, inviting publicity also from the widely read Retraction Watch blog.

The retraction note is rather brief, but open and honest, and it speaks well of the integrity of the editorial management that it does not try to hide its own mistakes, or that the retraction occurred only as a result of pressure from the journal's editorial board and external commentators. It signs off by promising further elaborations in coming editorials. My hope is that these will set out clarified policies and routines that ensure that the journal in the future will keep strictly within its own declared area expertise and scholarship of "all aspects of healthcare ethics and the humanities, relevant to and/or from the perspective of India and other developing countries". This simple policy will save the IJME from any further scandals of the sort it has just escaped, and be a pillar for what I hope will be a further positive route of development of this otherwise excellent journal.

However, on one point, I strongly disagree with the position set out by the editorial management, and that is its apparent decision to continue to hide the identity of the proven fraudulent author that used to call him-/herself "Lars Andersson", falsely claiming affiliation to Karolinska Institutet. The editors are hereby promoting further research fraud by this person, undermining both other journals and research institutions from protecting themselves against this person's future activities. It also impedes appropriate disciplinary action to be taken by the academic or other institution to which the person formerly known as "Lars Andersson" is indeed affiliated. Finally, it impedes any analysis into the vested or other conflicts of interests linking to this person's activity to attempt to peddle fraudulent antivaxx articles. The argument by the editors, that it has promised the author to keep his/her identity a secret is not only invalid. The action makes the editors complicit in any further research fraud undertaken by this person. The promise itself is morally void, as the editors had no business making it in the first place, their primary obligation being to the research community, and not to proven research fraudsters. It is my sincere hope that the further elaborations on editorial policy promised, possibly by help of further dialogue with the journal's editorial board, will lead to revision of judgement also regarding this particular point.

***

Highly Problematic Stance on Fake "Antivaxx" Authorship By the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics

It is a recognised challenge of my research field, bioethics, to include and empower researchers and institutions from low- and midlle-resource settings. Since a few years, the leading journal of Bioethics, runs the side journal Developing World Bioethics to address this issue, and over the past few years a number of journals have appeared, based at institutions outside of the most affluent parts of the world with a natural focus on bioethical issue of relevance to such settings, as well as global health related issues. One of these is the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, that has quickly been rising in the ranks and attracting respect for its consistent work.

However, very recently the IJME has been dragged into potential scandal. First, the editor, Amar Jesani, decided to publish an article by a fake author, claiming fake credentials and affiliations, of an obvious antivaxx junk article of the sort that antivaxxers – just like tobacco-industry sponsored scientists used to do regarding the dangers of smoking – are constantly trying to peddle to various journals to create an image of "scientific controversy" around the use of vaccines to fight infectious disease and build public health. The fakes were all very easy to detect, and already the fact that the "author" was not using the email-domain of, and has no profile at the webpages of, the institution (Karolinska Institutet) to which he claimed affiliation should have rung immediate alarm-bells. But then, when this is pointed out, and the journal is alerted to this research fraud, the editor Amar Jesani decides not to retract the article! Instead, the editor appears to have decided to trust the author's obviously bogus explanations for his (?) fraud, and to attempt to counter a, to my mind, quite sound statement on the matter from the Karolinska Institutet president, Ole-Petter Ottersen.

The bogus explanations and Jesani's expression of sympathy with them, and Ottersen's stringent response, is to be found here. This very surprising and ill-conceived action of Jesani is potentially extremely damaging for the IJME, and in effect risks to soil the reputation of the entire field of bioethics. The fake author's attempt at justifying the fraud is that he/she has to be anonymous to protect him-/herself from persecution for unpopular views. This, of course, is not even worth the scrap of paper it was scribbled on. The real role of the fraud is to block any investigation into conflicts of interests (the antivaxx movement is nowadays a flourishing industry of quackery), other activities of the author that would undermine confidence in the article's content, and the fact the author lied to the editor, and offered the explanation only in retrospect when the scam had been uncovered should, of course, mean that the editor should have no trust in what the author is claiming. This is a proven fraudster, and should be treated as such. Just as authors lying about ethics approval should have their papers taken out, authors who lie about other things of relevance to the evaluation and assessment of the research have their papers removed. As Ottersen says in his second blog post: an editor of an ethics journal should know this. The editorial board of the journal should immediately and strongly recommend its editor, who has obviously let his personal prestige lead him astray in this matter, to revise his position and act according to the high publication ethical standards expected of a bioethics journal that aspires to be well regarded.

Let me, lastly, comment on the possible need for author anonymity for research articles. The afterconstructed reason brough forward by the fake author and that Jesani surprisingly buys, is the idea that is often practices within news reporting. Where, eg., a newspaper may protect sources by keeping them confidential. However, that also means that whatever story is built on this, needs to present suffient additional public evidence, that is open for scrutiny, in order to compensate for the loss of control following source anonymity. This has not taken place in the case of the fraudulent article. Also, the whole spinn about author/source confidentiality is obviously a lie in the present case: Had the author had any such plan, he/she would have honestly and openly contacted the IJME editor about it, and Jesani could have pondered - bringing in the editorial board - the issue. Had they decided to approve such a request, this would have brought with it extraordinarily strong obligations to check the author credibility, CoI, etc. This is not what occurred, however. What occurred is that a con-man defrauded the journal, and the journal editor then decides, against any common sense, to trust said con-man. Unbelievable!

****

New Article Presenting Framework for Identifying Ethical Aspects in Health Technology Assessment

I'm happy to announce the publication of a new article, available for free download and reading online, that presents a novel framework for systematic identification of ethical aspects in so-called Health Technology Assessment (HTA). This is the organised and systematiced discipline of assessing the evidence for the value of new treatments and methods for health care purposes (pharmaceuticals, new procedures, technical tools, diagnostic tests, and so on). The idea of having ethical issues integrated into such assessment has been seriously discussed for about ten years, and I have the last two of these been fortunate to take part in a project to this effect, organised by the Swedish national health technology assessment agency, SBU. This work produced a new guideline in Swedish and an update of the ethics section of the SBU method handbook. We then continued to develop a presentation of what we think are both novel and useful results also in an international perspective, which can increase the ambition and quality of attempts to integrate ethical aspects in HTA work, into an international publication, which we are now happy to have out in the International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care:

And the abstract runs:

Objectives: Assessment of ethical aspects of a technology is an important component of health technology assessment (HTA). Nevertheless, how the implementation of ethical assessment in HTA is to be organized and adapted to specific regulatory and organizational settings remains unclear. The objective of this study is to present a framework for systematic identification of ethical aspects of health technologies. Furthermore, the process of developing and adapting the framework to a specific setting is described.
Methods: The framework was developed based on an inventory of existing approaches to identification and assessment of ethical aspects in HTA. In addition, the framework was adapted to the Swedish legal and organizational healthcare context, to the role of the HTA agency and to the use of non-ethicists. The framework was reviewed by a group of ethicists working in the field as well as by a wider set of interested parties including industry, interest groups, and other potential users.
Results: The framework consists of twelve items with sub-questions, short explanations, and a concluding overall summary. The items are organized into four different themes: the effects of the intervention on health, its compatibility with ethical norms, structural factors with ethical implications, and long term ethical consequences of using the intervention.
Conclusions: In this study, a framework for identifying ethical aspects of health technologies is proposed. The general considerations and methodological approach to this venture will hopefully inspire and present important insights to organizations in other national contexts interested in making similar adaptations.

The article is so-called open access, meaning that it can be freely downloaded and read online by anyone. You are also free to re-use, distribute, and reproduce in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Find out more here or download the pdf directly here!

This is Huge: Serious Research Misconduct in Almost 3/4 of FDA Inspected Clinical Trials – Hidden by Both Inspecting Agency and Researchers

First I had problems taking it in: Almost 75% of US clinical trials inspected over a period of 15 years by the Food and Drug Agency, responsible for upholding regulation in this area, display serious misconduct of various kinds. It can't be that bad, I asked myself; if it was, I would have heard something about it before – research ethics in medicine being one of my areas of expertise! Except that I wouldn't, since neither the FDA nor the researchers in question have reported these stunning findings to the outside world. That is, until Charles Seife, an MD but also a journalist, decided to have a look at FDA documents of some of the made inspections between 1998 and 2013. What he found is reported in a recent article in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, where out of originally 600 trials, 101 where identified where the FDA had found strong reason of issuing complaint, and among these:

Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%). Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.

 Seife concludes:

The FDA has legal as well as ethical responsibilities regarding the scientific misconduct it finds during its inspections. When the agency withholds the identity of a clinical trial affected by scientific misconduct, it does so because it considers the identity to be confidential commercial information, which it feels bound to protect. However, failing to notify the medical or scientific communities about allegations of serious research misconduct in clinical trials is incompatible with the FDA’s mission to protect the public health /... /

To better serve the public health, the FDA should make unredacted information about its findings of research misconduct more readily available. The agency should make sure that any substantial evidence of misconduct is available to editors and readers of the scientific literature /.../

... most of the burden for ensuring the integrity of the research in the peer-reviewed literature falls to the authors of the articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Currently, there is no formal requirement for authors seeking to publish clinical trial data to disclose any adverse findings noted during FDA inspections. Journals should require that any such findings be disclosed.

The nail on the head if there ever was one, and Seife is backed by an editorial, signed by three strong voices from the Yale and UCSF medical schools. FDA is liable to serious criticism for not proactively informing the scientific and medical communities, as well as the general public, of these matters. Journals which not immediately effect the standard indicated by Seife would deserve equally serious criticism. But the worst of all is the fact that such journal policies would be needed in the first place. 

The by far heaviest burden of criticism befalls those researchers, many of which have not only committed scientific fraud and serious ethical breaches, but have all in addition consciously choosen to actively surpress highly relevant information about the quality of the studies they have conducted. Not only is this relevant for the publication screening at journals to safeguard the quality of scientific publications. It is even more relevant for the assessment of the results reported in publications for the purpose of, e.g., licencing or decisions on clinical use, or public funding. These researchers have sold their scientific credibility and honour to whatever bidder (in the vast majority of cases, one suspects the pharmaceutical company funding the study) have incited them to keep mum. People doing such things have no place in either the academic or the medical community.

Seife has a popular report of the significance of his study in Slate, here.

This is, as far as I can see, a major research ethics and regulatory scandal, and it might just be hiding an even larger one. For, given the frequency of serious misconduct now revealed, one may very well ask what would be found if FDA was to cast its inspection net wider and inspect even more trials. And what would be the outcome of similar procedures in, e.g., Europe or Asia?

New Article on the Ethics, Philosophy and Practice of Person-centred Care and Shared Decision-making

One topic that's been part of my research activities for some years now is the ethical and philosophical implications of movements to transform health care practices towards more of what's often called a "patient-" or "person-centred" perspective, sharing clinical decisions with patients to a larger extent. I've been lucky to publish a few analytical works in this area in collaboration with, e.g., Lars Sandman and Daniela Cutas, which have attracted quite some attention, partly as an outcome of an ongoing research collaboration with the pediatric diabetes centre at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, involving medicine, psychology, organisation, communication, care and human factors risk research, besides philosophy and ethics. Now I'm happy to announce the first of a number of planned articles coming out of empirical and multi-disciplinary investigations of communicative aspects of adolescent diabetes care undertaken in this project, authored by Anders Herlitz, myself, Marianne Törner and Gun Forsander. This article uses outtakes from a video-study of continuous doctor-patient consultation sessions forming the bulk of adolescent diabetes inpatient care (the rest is self-care performed by the younsters themselves) to question received assumptions in standard notion of what person-centredness and shared decision-making should involve, basing our arguments in received results from behavioural science and moral psychology. Instead, we advocates a new approach for patients who are at risk of suffering from weak decision capacities when performing self-care, while being in need of significant portions of such care. We also argue, that this new model exposes an hitherto ignored ethical tension within the person-centredness and shared decision-making advocacy, which needs to be adressed and managed for care to be defensible.

The article is entitled "The Counselling, Self-care, Adherence Approach to Person-centred Care and Shared Decision-making: Moral Psychology, Executive Autonomy and Ethics in Multi-dimensional Care Decisions", and has been accepted for publication in the journal Health Communication, to appear shortly. Meanwhile, interested parties may sample our final draft after the critical review that lead to acceptance (a so-called postprint), which has been made available here. In the pipeline are at least two more works based on this study, one of which on the role of parents and family in adolescent care, and one on conrete strategies to promote what in the article promoted here is called "robust decision capacity". In the future lingers further yet undecided things, as I am part of a group that has just received a nice bit of funding for continuing working on this topic.

Further on what's Cookin' at AJOB and Bioethics.net

I have now received conformation and independent corroboration of the rumours and signs I reported about before, which due to a number of factors I was unsure how to assess. Summer Johnson McGee has indeed stepped out of the management of the American Journal of Bioethics, and also announced that she are cutting her ties to Bioethics.net. The actual letter, or email, of resignation has now been forwarded to me and is here shown in its entirety:

From: Summer <summer.mcgee@me.com>

Subject: Leaving AJOB

Date: 10 September 2012 2:31:21 PM CDT

To: <editorialboard@bioethics.net>

Cc: "pwolpe@emory.edu Wolpe" <pwolpe@emory.edu>, "Robert \"Skip\" Nelson" <robert.nelson@fda.hhs.gov>, David Magnus <dmagnus@stanford.edu>

Friends of The American Journal of Bioethics and bioethics.net,

I want to share with all of you that Friday, September 14, 2012 will be my last day at The American Journal of Bioethics and bioethics.net. In mid-August, I had detailed conversations with both David Magnus and the publisher about my desire to leave AJOB. I have elected also that bioethics.net, the blog, the weekly newsletter, and all of its social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) will no longer be owned and operated by me nor will the editorial office reside with me any longer. I have so enjoyed working with you as peers, and I owe you a succinct explanation for my departure. I firmly believe that we are right to be proud of the Journal's last twelve years, the first era of The American Journal of Bioethics.  AJOB accomplished things that no one in bioethics or publishing thought possible, least of all its editors and staff. Until a few months ago, I often said that the work I did for AJOB felt impactful and rewarding, even important. AJOB no longer feels that way to me.  Whether it is me, the field, or the journal that has changed, I know that I no longer want to lead our field's most cited journal. 

So, with thanks to those who have asked me not to depart, I feel I must leave the Journal, a decision made much easier because I know it is in the competent hands of David Magnus and the editorial staff he and I hired in the last few months.  It has been a privilege to spend the last four years working with the journal’s editorial board, authors, peer reviewers, and readers.  My departure from our journal is of course very emotional for me. AJOB has been my labor of love for a very long time. I thank each of you who contributed to that experience for me personally and professionally; your faith in the journal and in me has been unwavering and unforgettable.

I wish The American Journal of Bioethics, its current editors, editorial board, and readers the best of luck in its next era.  I bid you a fond, bittersweet, farewell.  

Cordially,

Summer Johnson McGee, PhD

 The bulk of the text is what is (or was) actually quoted in William Heisel's mysteriously shut down post at Reporting on health (of which you can read a web cached version here), which makes that shut down even more strange.

In any case, the text does not really throw any light on the specifics that has led to Summer's decision. Heisel, as I mentioned in my former post, has a vaguely hinted guess. And in a blog post at Psychology Today, bioethics researcher Alice Dreger offers further possible reasons for Johnson McGee to abandon ship. These, as it were, are further alleged conflict of interest cases that may have been severely manhandled by the old AJOB management, but which are not explicitly connected to the scandal around possibly pharma corrupted pain medication research, that I told about in the former posting, and more extensively in another one before.  That is, there may be yet another complex of COI problems at AJOB to which Johnson McGee (and her husband and former editor in chief, Glenn McGee) might have been connected. In this case, the connection is to clinical experiments involving drugs and prenatal diagnosis on fetuses and children with hereditary abnormalities in the sex-hormone production, which Dreger and colleagues critically assess in a very recent article. In fact, this potential problem for AJOB is connected also to members of its editorial and conflict of interest boards, as well as the editor in chief of its sibling journal AJOB Primary Research, Robert Nelson.

In any case, Dreger in her post describes in exact terms what that is about, and reports that she and a colleague have just written the new AJOB management to look at the matter with fresh eyes in light of what has recently come to pass. The ball is now in the hands of suddenly sole editor in chief, David Magnus.

As for my own worries around the integrity of AJOB, having to do with the not very sound financial ties between the former editor in chief and Bioethics.net, things are still unclear. Nothing in Johnson McGee's letter makes any more clear how the relationship between the new AJOB management, AJOB itself and Bioethics.net now looks like. Do any of the editors of AJOB have financial interests in Bioethics.net that, together with the role of Bioethics.net in the AJOB operation, provide incentives for making editorial decisions based on other grounds that those that should guide a scientific editor? This remains to be seen.

Lots to do at the American Journal of Bioethics

As readers of this blog know, I have informed about and commented quite a bit on various controversies and debates surrounding the American Journal of Bioethics – when it comes to standard ways of ranking academic journals, the by far most influential of those in the field of bioethics and medical ethics, as well as celebrated for its pioneer editorial design with main "target articles" and rapid responses, plus a parallel publication online at the Bioethics.net, a research, news and comment portal for bioethics. Notwithstanding these qualities, the recent events I have been reporting about have undoubtedly scarred AJOB as an institution and left the current management with a challenging task of restoring lost trust. A short reminder:

1. A high profile resignation from the editorial board by Hilde Lindemann due to doubts about the soundness of the journal's editorial and managerial policies (here, here, here).

2. An impossible conflict of interest situation within the editorial management of AJOB created when former editor in chief Glenn McGee resigned to take up a post as full-time consultant for the private stem cell banking company, CellTex, while his wife (a distinguished bioethicist ijn her own right, but under default legislation, of course, sharing the financial ties of her husband), Summer Johnson McGee took over the AJOB rudder (together with David Magnus). It didn't help the case that Glenn McGee's resignation process and move to CellTex was far from ideally managed (creating lots of completely unnecessary questions) or that the Cell Tex operation itself is highly questioned among bioethics researchers. My reports and comments are here, here, here, here, here, here. The affair resolved itself when Glenn McGee announced his resignation from the CellTex job (thereby severing the vested conflict of interest ties affecting Summer Johnson McGee), but had at that point already effected two heavy resignations from the editorial board by John Lantos (who provided a strongly worded explanation) and Udo Schüklenk, himself editor in chief of the journal Bioethics (the latter however, still listed as a board member at the AJOB website).

This last affair had a bit of a semi-relevant aftermath, when CellTex, the stem cell company to which Glenn McGgee had been signed on to provide ethics consultancy threatened University of Minnesota bioethicist Leigh Turner (as well as his university) with lawsuits, when he wrote a letter to the FDA, urging them to investigate CellTex. Almost simultaneously, Glenn McGee did a very similar thing to Carl Elliott, a bioethics professor at the same university as Turner, for his published criticism of McGee's involvement with CellTex, leading to a retraction by the publisher Slate. See here, and here. None of those events, of course, did any good for the stained reputation of AJOB and one would have wished the journal some peace and quiet to be able to set the ship back on a straight course. However, it does not seem to end there.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that a leading researcher of the Center for Practical Bioethics, Myra Christopher was to be included in a US Senate probe into suspected heavy duty corruption due to the sponsoring from pharmacological companies in the area of pain medication and care. Now, until not very long time ago, both the McGee's were attached to CPB and Christopher herself is a member of the AJOB editorial board. So far pretty circumstantial and not really a link. However, a very recent revelation is that AJOB, when publishing an article with Christopher as co-author, neglected to publish a meaty description of her conflicts of interests due to the pharma sponsorship of CPB, plus missed (possibly due to omissions by Christopher to follow the proscribed COI disclosure procedure) other similar COI's of her co-authors. More details are at William Heisel's Reporting on Health blog; here and here. In any case the link between the troubles at AJOB and the serious allegations against CPB and Christopher is through this development clearly more than circumstantial. AJOB has allowed the possibly corrupt situation at CPB to enter into its midst, and it did so when its editor in chief and one other editor was academically based at CPB, so that the journal was effectively run from there, and even more so its parallel online extension Bioethics.net.

Now, queried by Reporting on Health, David Magnus, one of the new editors in chief of AJOB described how steps are now taken to beef up the COI disclosure procedures of the journal. Together with the resolving of the conflict of interest situation, this bodes well for the journal's future, albeit the uphill that has to be climbed by Magnus and Johnson McGee and their co-workers on the editorial and managerial side of AJOB has not exactly become less steep. Being a fan of AJOB, it makes me happy to detect Magnus' resolve to clear up any remaining irregularities or integrity problems at AJOB, and thus take important steps to restore its reputation.

One of the things that continues to create suspicion and confusion is the relation and connection between AJOB and Bioethics.net. This, I assume what was explained Hilde Lindemann's doubts with regard to the ownership of AJOB, and the latest post at Reporting on Health displays confusion around where information about AJOB is to be had – at the T&F website of the journal or at Bioethics.net. It has, through the first of the controversies mentioned above, been made very clear that AJOB is owned and published by Taylor & Francis, which in turn are not involved in the ownership or operation of Bioethics.net. But, of course, there is a business deal of some sort between T&F and Bioethics.net, lest the latter would not be able to offer its members automatic access to all AJOB material or so vigorously promote AJOB (no doubt contributing to its popularity and impact). When I checked before, when controversy no. 2 above was going on, none of these things were made very clear at the Bioethics.net website. However, the information given has now clearly improved and the ownership of Bioethics.net as well as its business link to AJOB is now described in the Bioethics.net "about" section, thus:

Bioethics.net is owned and operated by Bioethics Internet Group. Bioethics Internet Group (BIG) is wholly owned by Summer Johnson McGee, Ph.D. Funding for bioethics.net is provided by paid banner advertisements appearing on the website and a stipend from Taylor and Francis, Inc.

To me, this explains a lot why it "had" to be Summer Johnson McGee who took over the rudder when Glenn McGee resigned to take up the CellTex job. Although separate financial and organisational entities, only one of which with financial ties to the McGee's, Bioethics.net and AJOB are very much dependent on each other. Or AJOB is at least dependent on Bioethics.net to the extent that the latter does contribute to the success of the journal. Or perhaps the double involvement in Bioethics.net and AJOB helps to fund the no doubt unusually complicated editorial operation of the journal's ambitious design? In any case, it would seem very probable that Bioethics.net stands and falls as a business with the link to AJOB. So far, perhaps not much of a problem for AJOB from an integrity perspective. But it may need to be discussed to what extent it may be a problem that the editor in chief of AJOB has a direct financial interest in what is being published by AJOB (since that will affect the traffic of Bioethics.net and, through that, advertisement revenue of BIG, owned by Johnson McGee).

In any case, another matter for Magnus, Johnson McGee and the editorial board – as well as responsible officers at Taylor & Francis, of course – to ponder as they all continue their efforts to restore AJOB to its former glory.

More on How to Navigate in the Jungle of Online Open Access Academic Publishing

This post is a follow-up to one of the more popular posts of mine this year: How to Avoid Shaming Yourself and Your Field in the Academic Online Open Access Publishing Jungle. It has attracted a lot of readers and encouraging comments, here as well as via email, twitter and other routes. One of the early comments came from Jeffrey Beall, author of the list which made up the bulk of my own post, which was in turn cross-posted from Jeff's blog Metadata. What Jeff contacted me about was that he had just started a new blog focusing specifically on monitoring dodgy OA publishers, journals and related operations, such as academic editing, proof-reading, manuscript compilation and indexing services. My intention was to post this info, but then work stuff came in between, I momentarily forgot about it, and then contracted the illness which I am now almost recovered from.

So, with some shame on me, here is at last what looks to me as an outstanding source for accomplishing that which was the purpose of my first post: to help academics, PhD candidates, supervisors, etc. to navigate in the virtual jungle of the online OA academic publishing landscape, so as to avoid shaming oneself or one's academic institution, undermining one's forthcoming academic career, and so on. Jeff is frequently making fresh posts, and documents the result in continuously updated alphabetic lists. 

The blog's name?

How to Avoid Shaming Yourself and Your Field in the Academic Online Open Access Publishing Jungle

This is a post that follows up on two former ones (here and here) about how the new possibilities for easily setting up online open access academic journals create not only exciting opportunities for publishing and spreading important research results, but also a murky layer of sub-standard and outright scam operations. This has become an important issue for two reasons: First, these operations threatens the hole credibility of academic research, not least by providing incompetent, second-rate wannabe academics, or people who want to use the academic insignia as a cloak, e.g., for political opinion work, with a surface impression of respectability. This, in turn, connects to the next point, that for most people – also experienced academics – it is very difficult to keep track of and identify these operations – witnessed, for instance, by the fact that a fair share of them agree to be on bogus editorial boards for journals that do not even have an operationally responsible managing editor. This second problem becomes particularly acute, however, for young, aspiring academics and researchers, who try to navigate their early careers in an environment where the pressure to be published in peer-reviewed, international (= English language) journals is ever growing, and where most national funding bodies now demand publications coming out of projects they fund to be open access.

So, this post is meant as a help primarily for this latter group, but also for supervisors who are asked questions about this by students, PhD candidates, post docs and so on, but may not have been as busy keeping themselves up to date on this matter as they nowadays need to be. I'll do two things here, mainly. First, I'll list a few indicators, each of which providing sufficient reason to avoid an online open access journal at all cost, or at least be very, very wary of publishing there or lending it your services in other ways. In effect, several of these apply also to opportunities for being awarded a position on an editorial board, perform peer review work, and so on. Second, I'll cross-post some things from other blogs and provide some useful links that I was made aware of thanks to the response on my last post on this matter from bioethics prof. colleague Leigh Turner on Twitter.

1. Indicators for avoiding an online open access publishing opportunity

•  The journal has no ISSN number.
• You receive a generic email asking you to submit an article to the journal (Note: editors working on special issues may sometimes solicit submissions, but in those cases the emails are personal).
• Colleagues you trust receive said sort of emails
• The journal has no information about indexing on its website
• The journal lists Google Scholar as one of the indexes that track it (Google scholar is a useful tool for analysing online impact and availability in a wide sense, but it is not an academic quality indicator for journals – Google Scholar lists just about anything academic-ish to be found online)
• The journal is not indexed by either any of the discipline-specific indexes you know of (such as "Philosopher's Index" in my case), or by general quality indexes, such as the Web of Knowledge citation indexes (ISI, SSCI, AHCI). Note that a very new journal may not yet be indexed, but still be OK, check the other points for assessment in that case!
• The journal displays statements or signs giving an impression that it is "considered for", "tracked for" or "unofficially" tracked by some index of the type mentioned above.
• The journal has no actual person as acting or managing editor, or editor-in-chief.
• The journal promises very fast (1-4 days) peer review and publication process
• None or very few people on the editorial board are people known to you as respected people in your branch of specialisation and don't appear to be obviously worthy of such respect after an internet search of their publication record
• You may also perform searches to check how articles published in the journal are being cited outside of this journal and this and other similar publishers. The less external citation, the less credibility.

2. List of Online  Open Access Publishers to Avoid, plus some further facts
So, Leigh sent me a link to this rather amusing post describing how far it may go with the sort of operations we are talking about here: editorial board members on these journals may not even be real people! Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised, then, that journals such as these have no problem accepting and publishing bogus computer generated gibberish papers (as long as the OA fee is paid) – eventually leading to the resignation of the editor! (thanks Leigh, again!) And here's a blog post on two online open access publishers notorious for spamming. But the pure gold that Leigh sent me was this list, originally posted at the Metadata Blog – here cross-posted in its entirety:

Beall's List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers

by Jeffrey Beall

2012 Edition

[Link to this document in PDF format]

Predatory, open-access publishers are those that unprofessionally exploit the author-pays model of open-access publishing (Gold OA) for their own profit. Typically, these publishers spam professional email lists, broadly soliciting article submissions for the clear purpose of gaining additional income. Operating essentially as vanity presses, these publishers typically have a low article acceptance threshold, with a false-front or non-existent peer review process. Unlike professional publishing operations, whether subscription-based or ethically-sound open access, these predatory publishers add little value to scholarship, pay little attention to digital preservation, and operate using fly-by-night, unsustainable business models.

An asterisk (*) indicates that the publisher is appearing on this list for the first time.

Academic Journals

          This bogus, Nigeria-based publisher has been around for years, and continues to increase its journal fleet of over one hundred titles from all areas of study. Seeking legitimacy, it falsely associates itself with authentic organizations and conferences.

Academic Journals, Inc.

          One of several Faisalabad, Pakistan-based publishers (likely one outfit with several brands), this publisher claims to be headquartered in New York. Its tag line is "Converting research into knowledge," but it ought to say, "Converting research into cash" (for the publisher).

Academic Research Publishing Agency*

          This publisher, caught here in its formative stage, only has two titles. The main page invites proposals for new journal titles. Full of contradictions, this site is confusing. Its content appears to be open access, but it lists a subscription fee of $400 per year. On one of its editorial board pages it says, "Elite panel members have a decision weight equivalent of two referees," so if you know one of these elite members, you're in luck. 

ANSINetwork

          Another of the Faisalabad, Pakistan-based brands of open-access journals, this one ironically describes itself saying "Asian Network for Scientific Information is a leading scientific publisher and pinior [sic] in electronic publication in Asia." I think they mean "pioneer." This typo is but one example of the errors and unprofessionalism this publisher presents to the world with each page view.

Bentham Open

          Among the first, large-scale gold OA publishers, Bentham Open continues to expand its fleet of journals, now numbering over 230. Bentham essentially operates as a scholarly vanity press.

Center for Promoting Ideas*

          A new publisher with a ridiculous name, this operation is known to list scholars on its journals' editorial boards without their knowledge or permission.

David Publishing*

          Although this publisher purports to be headquartered in Libertyville, Illinois, United States, it actually appears to operate out of China. The home page shows a view of the Libertyville Industrial Park, the supposed home of the operation, as if to prove it operates in the U.S.

Dove Press

          This New Zealand-based medical publisher boasts high-quality appearing journals and articles, yet it demands a very high author fee for publishing articles. Its fleet of journals is large, bringing into question how it can properly fulfill its promise to quickly deliver an acceptance decision on submitted articles.

GlobalOpenJournals.org*

          Late to the party, this publisher currently has nine titles, but I fully expect it to expand its fleet. The site says that all of its journals will publish their inaugural issues in July, 2011, but as of this writing (late November, 2011) all remain devoid of content. 

  

Insight Knowledge

          This publisher purports to be headquartered in the U.K. with offices in North America and Singapore, but it really is a storefront type operation based out of Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Institute of Advanced Scientific Research*

          This bogus publisher of 12 journal titles says it's headquartered in Irvine, California. Its fleet of journal titles all begin with "Journal of Advanced Research in ..." The domain name registration does show an Irvine address, but at an apartment. Only a few of the titles have any content, but to view what little content there is, one must register with the site and agree to its terms and conditions, which I refused to do. Is a publication still considered open access when the hosting site requires registration? An organization that self-identifies as an institute when it is really just a money-making scheme is fraudulent.

InTech Open Access Publisher*

          The subject of much recent debate, this Croatia-based publisher looks and acts like an innovative, scholarly publisher. However, looking under the clever disguise reveals only a sophisticated vanity press, an enterprise where anybody can, for a price, get their work published in a journal or as a monograph.

International Digital Organization for Scientific Information*

          I only recently was alerted to this open-access publisher. Its fleet has 82 journal titles, including -- perhaps appropriately -- the "International Journal of Nuts and Related Sciences." Based apparently in Dubai, the "instructions for authors" page warns, "After Acceptance authors have to pay the processing handling charges," but the charges aren't listed.  More information may be available from an unnamed editor at idosi_editor@yahoo.com.

International Research Journals 

          Another Nigeria-based operation, this publisher is notable (in a negative way) for its interesting journal issue covers (most are created from pirated photographs), and for the Gmail addresses its employees all use. The absurd banner on its main page shows a picture of part of a duckling swimming in a lake.

Internet Scientific Publications

          If you love advertising, you'll love this site, for its main purpose is to make money from click-through ads. A one-man operation based out of Texas, its journal titles all begin with the phrase, "The Internet Journal of ..." It claims to be the largest independent, online medical publisher, but that claim conveniently ignores article quality, which is quite low.

Knowledgia Scientific (formerly Knowledgia Review)

          Another Pakistan-based publisher (with some possible ties to Malaysia), this firm has around a dozen titles, but some have very little content. Also, some of its journals lack editors and list only a few people on their editorial boards. Currently, this publisher's website claims the firm is waiving all author fees, but I remain suspicious. Are there hidden charges? The lack of content, skipped volume numbers, and the waiving of author fees are indicators of a publisher that is failing.

Libertas Academia

          The tag line under the name on this publisher's page is "Freedom to research." It might better say "Freedom to be ripped off." Based in New Zealand, this medical and scientific publisher boasts about the number of page views and downloads the articles in its eighty journals have had. Its author fees are high.

Medwell Journals 

          Another Pakistan-based outfit, this one makes its 34 journals open access but also offers print subscriptions, if you desire to pay for them. A slick operation with an online manuscript submission system, this publisher has been successful at attracting submissions. It's "contact us" page only yields a form, and no contact or geographical information is given. Always be wary of open-access publishers that give less than full contact information, including location, telephone numbers, email addresses, etc. At the same time, be aware that many publishers misrepresent their true business locations.

OMICS Publishing Group

          This publisher's name plays off the terms "genomics" and "proteomics." It hosts about 200 journal titles, many lacking any articles. As a side business, the publisher also organizes and hosts conferences. The contact page lists offices in the United States, Australia, and India. Its pages have Facebook "LIKE" buttons and its home page falsely claims an association with EBSCO Publishing and with other publishers and organizations.          

ScienceHuβ *

          This new publisher of five journals purports to be from "P.O. Box 3423, CT, 06460, United States of America" and cleverly uses the Greek letter β (beta) to indicate the English letter b in its title. A check of the domain name registration does indicate a Milford, Connecticut address. Still, the unidiomatic use of English throughout the site points to a non-U.S. operation: "Call for the papers," "Instructions for the authors," etc. Many of the papers deal with Nigeria, so it's likely this publisher is yet another Nigeria scam.  

Science Publications

          This publisher has a fleet of 28 journals, and most of their titles begin with the phrase, "American Journal of ..." Its "contact us" page is merely a web form, and no contact or geographical information is given. The journal titles lead one to believe the publisher is North America-based, but it could be from almost anywhere, and in fact is likely not from North America.

ScienceDomain International*

This publisher's fleet of 18 journals all try to show legitimacy by having titles that begin with "American" or "British" or "International." Any journal that begins with these terms must be respected, right? The "contact us" page is chiefly a web form, but the site does list three offices, one in the U.K., one in the U.S., and one in India. The site uses the "pool reviewers" method of peer review. Although the journals do have nominal editorial boards, there is really just one big editorial board for all the publisher's journals and reviewers are supposedly selected from that big list to review each submission. Looking at individual articles, I notice that the period between submission and acceptance is generally two weeks, an indication of bogus or nonexistent peer review.

         

Scientific Journals International

          This Saint Cloud, Minnesota-based publisher is essentially a one-man operation that employs many non-standard publishing practices. For example, the entire site has an ISSN number, and the large editorial boards are organized not by journal but by broad discipline. Also, individual journals lack editors in chief. It was reported earlier this year that the entire operation is up for sale.

Scientific Research Publishing

          This publisher, like the Institute of Advanced Scientific Research, claims to be based in Irvine, California (it lists a PO box number and an email address, but no telephone number). It has over one hundred journal titles, most having started publication in 2009, and has managed to attract numerous article submissions. This high number may be because of the publisher's relatively low author fees: $300 for the first ten pages, and $50 for each additional page, a policy that also encourages shorter papers. The journals each list large editorial boards, with members from all over the world, especially China. Indeed, the pricelist (for those desiring hardcopies of the journals), lists the prices in both U.S. and Chinese currency. This publisher also publishes books and conference proceedings. I found its servers to suffer from a slow response time.

Recommendation: Do not do business with the above publishers, including submitting article manuscripts, serving on editorial boards, buying advertising, etc. There are numerous traditional, legitimate journals that will publish your quality work for free, including many legitimate, open-access publishers.

If you are involved in any form of scholarly evaluation such as, hiring, tenure / promotion review, or grant funding, be skeptical of articles published by any of these publishers listed above. Reading a list of publications or a vita, it is very difficult to distinguish legitimate journals from the illegitimate ones. One of the tricks the sham publishers use is to assign authentic-sounding and appearing titles to their journals. The presence of these bogus publishers has changed the task of scholarly evaluation, which now needs a keener eye to discern articles published in fraudulent journals.

Watchlist: We do not consider the following publishers to be predatory, open-access publishers, but they may show some characteristics of them, and we are closely monitoring them.

Hindawi

          Based in Cairo, Egypt, this publisher is now on its own after its collaboration with the publisher Sage ended in 2011. This publisher has way too many journals than can be properly handled by one publisher, I think, yet supporters like ITHAKA boast that the prevailing low wages in Egypt, as well as the country's large college-educated, underemployed workforce, allow the company to hire sufficient staff to get the job done. Still, this publisher continues to release new fleet startups of journals, each group having titles with phrases in common: Advances in ... (31 titles) and Case Reports in ... (32 titles). It appears that Hindawi wants to strategically dominate the open-access market by having the largest open-access journal portfolio.

MedKnow Publications

          This publisher was on the main list last year. It is the publisher for many well-respected Indian professional societies and is disseminating abundant, high-quality research. However, its business model is vague and unproven: it provides free HTML versions of articles but charges for the PDF version. Also, it needs to improve its web presence. Many of its journal websites referred to the publisher as a publisher of "Sports, technology, and medicine" (STM) journals, instead of "Science, technology, and medicine," the correct term.

PAGEPress 

          This Italian publisher has some of the qualities of a legitimate publisher and some of a predatory one. It has about fifty journal titles, some with intriguing names like Wine Studies and Antiqua. On the other hand, visitors to the publisher's website will encounter sloppy housekeeping in the form of dead links, and a prominent link to PayPal on every journal's home page, supposedly for the author fees but giving the publisher's real motive away. The publisher claims its content is "indexed" in SherpaRomeo, but that isn't an indexing service. PAGEPress needs to clean up its act.

Versita Open

          Based in Poland (with a contact address in London, U.K.), this publisher claims to be the second-largest open-access publisher in the world, with over 200 open-access journals in its fleet. Versita Open publishes some of its titles on behalf of learned societies in Central and Western Europe. The frightening thing about an operation this large is the amount of time and resources it takes to edit a single peer-reviewed journal is multiplied in this case by 200. Versita also has for-profit publishing operations, but it appears to be slowly flipping its model to gold open-access for journals. Moreover, Versita Open also sells its open-access titles in print form, by paid subscription. Versita Open claims that there are no author fees for most of its open-access journals, so its business model is unclear. Are its for-profit titles subsidizing its open-access ones? Do the societies pay all the cost of publishing the society journals on the Versita Open platform? We think few in the U.S. have even heard of this firm, so it will be interesting to see how it progresses, and we hope it evolves into a respected open-access publisher.

Has the journal Nature sold out to the alternative medicine industry and quack/fake science?

What to say about this move of the world's (by far) most prestigeous scientific journal?

 Well, this surely does not inspire much confidence:

We are grateful for the support of our sponsors, Saishunkan Pharmaceutical Co., ltd. and the Kitasato University Oriental Medicine Research Center.

And I'm sure the boost of the Nature bank balance was handsome. This suplementary issue will very probably also do wonders for the Nature impact factor, a commodity worth its weight in rhodium in these days when scientific publication and citation is a currency and – if stunts like this are becoming a habit among the leading journals – pretty soon not very much more than that. The Nature editors must be proud of being pioneers in this area.

One blogger with both insight and clout has so far concluded:

I'm left with the conclusion that, to their eternal shame, by publishing this issue, the editors of Nature have become willing shills for the TCM industry. Nature has sold out, and its editors and publisher should be called out for it.

But, please, judge for yourselves here (the supplement issue is apparently open access online) and read the comments so far....

Here, and here.

Ta!

More Massive Criticism of Article Claiming Abortion to Cause Mental Health Problems

The article by Priscilla Coleman purporting to demonstrate a causal link between abortion and mental health problems has been the subject of posts on this blog two times already: here and here. In summary: Coleman's attempt at meta-analysis seems to suffer from all the flaws one may imagine and it is a mystery how the peer review of the British Journal of Psychiatry can have let it pass, lest the integrity of the referee and editorial procedures of this journal is put into question.

The other day, six further so-called rapid responses to Coleman's article appeared on the BJP site. Of these, all but one expand and further develops the criticism. One response (Koch et al) tries to make the point that the recommendation to inform abortion seeking women about a risk that an abortion may endanger their mental health may still hold, even if the scientific criticism is sound. This is the exact claim that I questioned in my first posting even assuming that Coleman were to be right in her conclusion (which now seems highly unlikely). Let me quote:

...suppose that Coleman indeed is right in the strongest sense, is the most obvious conclusion then that we should move to restrict access to legal abortion? Actually not, since there is strong scientific support for the claim that such actions lead to no good (in particular, they do not prevent abortions). How about informing about the risk then? Well this looks more sensible, although, if the underlying explanation of abortion being a risk factor is that a certain portion of abortion seeking women are already burdened by mental health problems that threaten to become more serious if they are exposed to trauma of some kind, one may doubt the efficacy of such actions.

Instead, the practical conclusion that would seem to be gaining the most support would be this: Researchers like Coleman should rapidly proceed to develop instruments to identify those at risk, and abortion services should offer these women special post-abortion care and counseling, or even preventive actions before the procedure is undertaken that may serve to decrease the risk. If such an instrument proves difficult to develop, such care and counseling should become a standard ingredient of good clinical abortion practice all across the board. I must say that I find it a bit odd and worrying that Coleman's own practical suggestion does not focus on this. After all, if women's mental health is what you care about, practical implications should focus on actions directed at promoting that aim.

Koch and colleagues (one of which has a bioethics affiliation) try to make their point using the precautionary principle, and since this is the subject of a recent book of mine (likewise a forthcoming article in the forthcoming International Encyclopedia of Ethics) you may imagine that I'm tempted to enter the rapidly growing rapid response community myself. For that reason, I will wait a bit commenting on that particular thing until I decide whether or not to address to BJP what is, in several elementary senses, either severe misuse of the notion of this principle or the use of an obviously implausible version of it.

Call for Retraction of Article Claiming Abortion to Cause Mental Health Problems

The controversy grows regarding an article published in the British Journal of Psychiatry some weeks back by Priscilla K. Coleman, presenting a meta-analysis that purports to demonstrate that having an abortion is a causal factor for subsequent mental health problems. It is important to understand that this claim is not only about there being a statistical correlation between having an abortion and suffering from subsequent mental health problems. The presence of such a correlation is well-established in research around abortion since a long time, and is not doubted by anyone. However, many closer analyses have revealed that the correlation is not due to the having of an abortion giving rise to mental ill-health. This since, among other things, there is an over-representation of mental health problems among abortion seeking women. Indeed, in a recent very ambitious study, published in the very prestigious journal New England Journal of Medicine, it is shown that probably mental health problems is a causal factor of establishing of an unwanted pregnancy. So, in fact, it would seem that the causal link goes the opposite way of what Coleman is claiming. I raised these concern already in my first posting on this subject.

Now, the distinction between a statistical correlation and a causal link is elementary to scientific inquiry - it is, one might say, to research as knowing the alphabet is to writing. In my original posting, I therefore assumed that Coleman had probably controlled for the presence of pre-pregnancy mental health problems, as well as other possible explanatory factors (so-called confounders) in her analysis – reserving my critical comments mainly to biased news reporting of her results. However, subsequent harsh criticism from leading researchers in the field, reported about in another posting, revealed that not only had Coleman not done this elementary footwork, she had made a grossly biased selection of the studies underlying the analysis (with about half of these being of her own or her group and many top-quality studies excluded), included many studies that use deficient methodology (not least those of her own), and – as if that was not enough – undertaken her meta-analysis ignoring several standard ingredients employed and agreed to by researchers world-wide in order to avoid common mistakes and biases. Based on that, I voiced concern about the integrity and quality of the BJP peer review process and editorial policy and speculated about a call for retraction of Coleman's paper (which, in the scientific world means that the content of the article is no longer considered to be valid science). The sub-standard scientific quality pointed out by the critics is reason enough, but since Coleman's conjecture (for this seems what it is) was immediately taken up by anti-abortion extremists world-wide, the editor needs to consider the obvious harm that continued support of the article can have – a harm, due to the scientific flaws of Coleman's work, that is effected for no good reason.

After that, two more critical (so-called "rapid") responses to Coleman's article have been published in BJP. One of these (by David Ferguson,  John Horwood and Joseph Boden) attempts to defend Coleman, mainly by attacking one of the critics. However, the very serious criticism voiced in the other responses is simply ignored. Moreover, it is obvious that Ferguson et.al. seem to be as oblivious to the elementary distinction between statistical correlation and causal linkage as is Coleman. They write:

....despite the claims made in previous reviews about the absence of association between abortion and mental health, when data are pooled across studies there is consistent evidence suggesting that women having abortions are at modestly increased risks of mental health problems when compared with women coming to term with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.

Note here that the expressions are "association between abortion and mental health" and "increased risk". Does this support Coleman's conjecture about a causal link? No, it does not, as everyone who has ever taken a primer in statistical method knows. In fact, "association" and "increased risk" means the same, and this meaning is that there is a statistical correlation between having an abortion and suffering from subsequent mental health problems that is stronger than that between carrying a pregnancy to term and suffering from subsequent mental health problems. Yes, you read rightly, the same statistical correlation that is generally agreed on by everyone. Ferguson et.al. either seems to have mistaken what the issue worthy of inquiry is from the outset, or missed some crucial lessons of science class. In short, this response is a misnomer and completely irrelevant to the debate on Coleman's conjectured findings.

So, the basis for assessing Coleman's article as ripe for retraction seems to stand. Not surprisingly then that just such a call was today sent to BJP. I happened to come to know about it through one of the internet forums of my own field of research (the Bioethics International group on Facebook), asked the author of the call to see it, and received his permission to quote it verbatim. It will still take a few days for BJP to decide whether or not to publish it among the "rapid responses", but until then (or in case the editor should chose to try to avoid the embarrassment of publishing it), you can read it here in its entirety:

Coleman Article Should be Retracted, Not Debated in a Subsequent Issue of BJP

Serious flaws in the reporting and conduct of the Coleman review should have been identified in pre-publication review and not left for readers of BJP to sort through subsequently. The article should be retracted and should not given the dignity of post-publication debate in a subsequent issue of the journal.

The review lacks the fundamental transparency that is expected of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and needed to allow readers to independently evaluate its conduct and interpretation of results without having first to go back to the original studies. Search strategies are not even provided in sufficient detail for readers to ascertain the adequacy and completeness of the retrieval of relevant studies.

Results for 36 effects obtained from 22 studies that are integrated into a single effect size represent highly diverse outcomes ranging from smoking of marijuana to suicide. The overall effect size that is calculated does not generalize back to the individual outcomes in any meaningful way. This aspect of the meta-analysis recalls a photo often incorporated into workshops on meta-analysis. The photo depicts the famous road sign for New Cuyama, California in which a total of 4663 is indicated for a population of 562, an elevation of 2150 feet, and a date of establishment of 1951.  The calculation of an estimate of the heterogeneity of the effect size reported by Coleman is missing, in violation of standards for reporting a meta-analysis.

Multiple effects sizes are obtained from individual studies are integrated in a way that violates basic assumptions of independence of individual effect sizes that are required for a meaningful meta analysis. The 22 studies include 13 from Coleman's author group, and so the meta analysis violates usual expectations that a meta analysis be independent of the author group who generated the original studies. David Reardon who is a co-author of Coleman on a number of these studies has declared his strategy [1]:

"For the purpose of passing restrictive laws to protect women from unwanted and/or dangerous abortions, it does not matter if people have a pro-life view...In some cases, it is not even necessary to convince people of abortion's dangers. It is sufficient to simply raise enough doubts about abortion that they will refuse to actively oppose the proposed anti-
abortion initiative. In other words, if we can convince many of those who do not see abortion to be a 'serious moral evil' that they should support anti-abortion policies that protect women and reduce abortion rates, that is a sufficiently good end to justify NRS efforts. Converting these people to a pro-life view, where they respect life rather than simply fear abortion, is a second step. The latter is another good goal, but it is not
necessary to the accomplishment of other good goals, such as the passage of laws that protect women from dangerous abortions and thereby dramatically reduce abortion rates."

Many of the studies included in the Coleman meta-analysis, including most of the studies conducted by her group, are strongly criticized by other researchers and excluded from consideration in other systematic reviews, including a forthcoming report by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) at the Royal College of Psychiatrists
(RCPsych). One can only speculate on the timing of the BJP's publishing of Coleman's review relative to the impending release of the RCPsych report. Results of some of the original Coleman studies are not replicated in subsequent re-analyses of the same data sets by others. Coleman integrates results from studies without controlling for measures of mental health outcomes obtained prior to an abortion and in a number of instances, the mental health outcomes entered into her meta analysis were obtained before the abortion. In other instances, the effects reflect differences between women who obtained an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy versus women who delivered a wanted baby, a grossly
inappropriate comparison if the intention is to obtain a valid estimate of the effects of abortion on mental health.

It is a mater of  technical details, but important to evaluating Coleman's meta analysis that she used the wrong formula to calculate population-attributable risk and violated basic assumptions for such a calculation.

These serious flaws were apparent in a cursory reading of Coleman's article. I am confident that a closer read and a retrieval of the original studies and others that were ignored by Coleman would have yielded still more problems. But I think this analysis reaches the threshold for demonstrating the necessity of retracting the Coleman article and it begs an explanation for the nature of the peer review that led to the article being accepted.

The Coleman article is not a contribution to scientific literature but rather represents the revenge of Coleman and her offer group on the scientific community which has held their work to basic objective scientific standards, criticized its poor quality, and excluded from
integration into systematic reviews on the basis of objective criteria.

1. Reardon DC (2002). A defense of the neglected rhetorical strategy (NRS). Ethics Med 18 (2): 23-32.

James C. Coyne, Ph.D.
Director, Behavioral Oncology Program
Abramson Cancer Center and
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychiatry
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
http://bit.ly/Coyne_ISI
http://www.afcri.upenn.edu/ourfaculty/coyne_bio.html

Careful as I am, not being an expert in this field, I still must say that the combination of the massive sound criticism against Coleman's analysis and methodology, as well as the obvious fault that I can spot myself, should have the editor make the retraction move. The obvious ideological agenda underlying the research of Coleman and her team, pointed out also in another of the rapid responses, adds to this, since it makes probable the hypothesis that the faults of Coleman are not (only) the result of incompetence, they are deliberately engineered to achieve the shallow appearance of publicisable scientific claims in order to give the political anti-abortion movement its 15 minutes fame.