Mothering Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,143 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm having a "discussion" on another board with a guy who claims that it's too soon after the studies for them to have been refused publication in medical journals and that I'm making it up to make circ look bad. Is there anything I can cite to show him that they were in fact denied publication? I know it's been mentioned on here numerous times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,770 Posts
The first study, the South Africa one, was refused by the Lancet, because of the ethical issues in terms of not telling the study participants who were HIV +. It was published in the PLoS, an online journal, which I don't believe is peer-reviewed (although they do accept peer comments). No idea on whether it was submitted anywhere else.<br><br>
The peer critiques are very useful in pointing out the study's flaws. If you look at doulasarah's post on HIV/circ in my post, there's a link to the study and you can find the critiques linked from there. You can also find a link to the critique on calling circ as effective as a vaccine.<br><br>
The next two studies (Uganda and Kenya) -- no information on these. I think it's too soon to say they've been refused for publication anywhere unless you find that out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
My suggestion is to go to this thread:<br><a href="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=617420" target="_blank">http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=617420</a><br>
And find the people who included this statement in their letters and ask them for their reference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
As I remeber it, the information that Lancet had refused publication of Auvert's South African study was from an article in the Wall Street Journal (I think!). I haven't been able to locate the reference on it.<br><br>
The Auvert study (which was eventually published in PLoS on-line) is the only one that could be claimed to have been rejected. The other, more recent, two - from Kenya and Uganda - have not been published yet, to my knowledge.<br><br>
Gillian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
As someone who has had my own scientific manuscripts both published and rejected at times, I can tell you it is never "too soon" after a study to have it rejected. As soon as you write it up, you can submit it and get a response. Peer-reviewed journals reject the manuscript at the editorial level (a triage) in only a day or two. If it passes the editor as sufficient for peer review, it usually only takes 2-6 weeks to get the critiques and decision back. It's only if you go back and forth with a journal making more and more revisions that it can drag on for months. Rejection is quick!!
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top