Jump to content

Talk:The Lancet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer-reviewed?

[edit]

Is The Lancet peer-reviewed? -Jess

It certainly is. Most medical journals nowadays are peer-reviewed. Is there anything specific you'd like to know about this? JFW | T@lk 21:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

[edit]

Someone inserted that a study on NSAIDs in oral cancer was a hoax. The only corrobation I have is this in the Grauniad, but nothing from the journal itself. We should not be listing every incident where research data is falsified. Only if the peer-review process comes under pressure - and only if there is evidence for this - should we be thinking about including this factoid. JFW | T@lk 14:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is, like the recent South Korean case, a major scandal, and has been dominating the news in Norway for several days now as well been widely reported in other countries. According to Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, the article will have to be retracted, which has only happened one time before when he was an editor. The Lancet's "fast track" review process has been criticized ever since it was introduced in 1997. Wolfram 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we wait until the Lancet has actually retracted? Also, do you have solid evidence of the criticism for the "fast track" process? I've always found this a bit dubious. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly read about the case in Norwegian newspapers, like this one, which states that the article was published after a "fast track review" process, and that this practice has been criticized by for example the British Medical Journal (Dec. 2004). Also, today Lancet editor Horton told leading Norwegian daily Aftenposten that this is the biggest research fraud the world has ever seen. [1] English. I don't see why we shouldn't write about the case now. Many people will be looking for information and expecting to find something about it. Wolfram 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have established the verifiability and the notability, would you mind making the relevant amendments to the article? JFW | T@lk 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Iraq Mortality Studies

[edit]

I have not seen the reports about death toll in Iraq being outspoken, so why do you guys write that the it has been outspoken ?

"The second survey estimated that the death toll in Iraq was somewhere between 426,000 and 793,000 people - with 601,000 being the agreed upon mid-way estimate." Is not right. From the paper "601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence," but the number of deaths is 654 965 (392 979–942 636) (Bracketed terms are the 95% CI.)
Also the phrase "being the agreed upon mid-way estimate" is a shocking choice of words. It sounds like the number is the result of some consensus of interested parties. 654 965 is the estimated value.
Thirdly, I wonder if it's premature to mention the Iraq Mortality Studies as controversial at all yet?--RobinGrant 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horton's expression of concern

[edit]

Horton has now published his expression of concern[2]. JFW | T@lk 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question

[edit]

As there is a fixed policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy saying that the Beatles has to be written with a lowercase 't', I wonder what your thoughts are about using that policy for this page, and if you would agree or disagree. I thank you. andreasegde 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening?

[edit]

This case undermines importance of power abuse in a power pyramid owned by publishers over ideas expressed by top level employees in medical journals such as The Lancet.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/05/senior_lancet_editor_sacked_in.html

--Nevit (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics section

[edit]

I'm curious why a medical journal discussing the medical fact that homeopathy is bogus would be considered political. It's like saying a geology journal discussing the age of the Earth being billions of years is political. Given the other subjects listed in that section are where the journal was used to express an editorial opinion rather than fact, I believe that particular entry to be misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolrahnaes (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lancet Infectious Disease Article Criticism

[edit]

The text was removed as it was an allegation and there was no reference quoted to backup the claims of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutonline (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The focus of this encyclopedia article is a peer-reviewed medical journal. As such, at best 1-2 lines on the current controversy (NPOV) are warranted. Not 5 paragraphs serving to forward a particular POV. Thanks Antorjal (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Then remove the whole controversial topic paragraph. Why keep it ? It was created for purpose. --Thandermax (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned one or two NPOV paragraphs are warranted not a soapbox for biased assertions. Just because a section exists doesn't mean it should read like a newspaper, right? Antorjal (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former Lancet editor accused of cover-up

[edit]

Former Lancet editor accused of cover-up. The British Medical Journal has published a detailed account of the failure of The Lancet editor Richard Horton to properly investigate the complaint made by Brian Deer about Dr. Andrew Wakefield's now infamous 1998 article. [Deer B. "Secrets of the MMR scare: The Lancet's two days to bury bad news." BMJ 342:c7001, 2011] This is the third article in the BMJ series about Wakefield's misconduct. Casewatch has posted the transcripts from the General Medical Council's hearings that ended with the revocation of Wakefield's medical license.

Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New impact factor 2012

[edit]

At the moment, only the impact factor for The Lancet has been updated. I will take care of the other Lancet journals in aprox. 4 weeks time. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza issues

[edit]

We should probably cover this story, perhaps as a section in the controversial articles area.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The Open Letter For The People of Gaza section is embarrassingly pro-Israeli apartheid.

[edit]

The first two lines are the most laughably emotional arguments, this page must have been edited by a Zionist. Considering every single news article linked is locked in step with the Israeli agenda, it's pretty ironic that someone linked to the "Jews control the media, politics and banking" canard considering this 'controversy' has yet again proven that it's literally impossible for academics to discuss poor, innocent Israel's war crimes without a bunch of tools freaking out and spreaing misinformation to discredit the Cassandra truth speakers.

"no mention of Hamas' atrocities." Israel is the actively illegal occupier, they are the ones responsible for the incivility of the situation. Violence is the language of the unheard and oppressed.

"are apparently sympathetic to the views of David Duke, a white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard." HAHAHAHAHAHA nice propaganda, anyone who actually read the thing without going into a knee jerk conniption can tell it's filled with compassion, nationalists are too offended by the truth apparently: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61044-8/fulltext

"The transparent effort to conceal this vicious and substantially mendacious partisan political diatribe as an innocent humanitarian appeal has no place in any serious publication" #NotAllIntellectualsAreUselessAmoralScum. Seriously how much of a piece of garbage do you have to be to see war crimes happening, but spend your time complaining about the people who are speaking truth to power in order to help the victims? These disgusting "intellectuals" are literally worse than worthless. Omgtotallyradical (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the authors of the letter is correct and damaging, although I basically agree with the content of the letter. Some people who are anti-Zionists are indeed anti-semites, and that is just the sad truth. You might rebalance the section by discussing the content of the letter, but there is no reason to remove sourced material about its authors. 81.88.116.27 (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source missing

[edit]

"The Vatican defended itself by pointing to an earlier Lancet article published in 2000 which asserted that condoms could not possibly be sufficient in solving the AIDS crisis" The source for this sentence is a dead link. I wasn't able to verify that this actually happened.137.82.157.147 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information on the PACE trial

[edit]

How is the release of information that contradicts claims made in the Lancet's reporting of the PACE trial unrelated to the PACE trial? The PACE trial is already included in the Lancet's controversies section. @Jytdog:

Yep most of it wasn't about the Lancet per se but about a conflict between a patient advocates and authors of the paper. That doesn't belong here. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that information about the way Horton characterised critics, or the release of data which contradicts claims made in the Lancet about the result for this controversial study belongs here less than, for example, the information provided on the Iraq War death toll controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.238.50 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't any reason to omit this information, which seems highly relevent to me, I'll put it back in tomorrow.51.9.238.50 (talk)
You have not explained why it is relevant to the Lancet, per se. Again the FOIA action did not concern the Lancet. The content already says that the articles caused controversy. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed all information about why the trial has attracted criticism, while other topics of controversy on this page include information that would help readers understand why the topic is controversial. The data released through the FOIA undermines claims made in the Lancet about the PACE trial's results. Horton is the editor of the Lancet, so his comments on the critics of the PACE trial also seem relevant to the Lancet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.238.50 (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that's fair. i added a bit about the controversy. This really a matter for the other CFS article, not this one. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that doesn't include any information on why PACE, and the Lancet's coverage, attracted criticism. Also, I think that it is misleading to present critics as only "journalists and patient advocates" when, for example, the open letter calling for the retraction of PACE's recovery claims is dominated by researchers: http://www.virology.ws/2017/03/13/an-open-letter-to-psychological-medicine-about-recovery-and-the-pace-trial/ I also do not understand why you removed reference to Horton's portrayal of critics, or the fact that data the researchers were forced to release from the trial undermined claims made about recovery in the Lancet (claims that an editor at the Lancet had earlier said should be corrected, but which the Lancet have since refused to correct). All of this seems highly relevent to the Lancet's handling of this controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.238.50 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have talked about this before. Please read MEDRS - that is the kind of source you need. Blogs are not OK. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I've ever discussed anything with you before. Regardless, I had not cited a blog in the information I included on the Lancet's wikipedia page, but the New York Times' coverage of this letter. I linked directly to the letter here, in the talk section, in order to show you why I was concerned that the edit you made was misleading.
Yep, we have, over at the articles on CFS and the management one. The virology.ws thing that you cite above - that you cite all the time - is a blog. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain I've never cited that blog on wikipedia ever before (I very rarely edit anything on wikipedia, partly due to discussions like this). It might be more useful if you responded to the points being made instead of being led by your concerns about who you imagine I am (not someone you like?).
You are obviously wanting the content to get into the details of the scientific dispute. But you have no MEDRS sources in which the scientific controversy is described. This is the same problem you keep running into here in Wikipedia. When you can bring such a source, the conversation will be different. Not until then. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep saying things that are not true? The problem I have with wikipedia is that it seems to attract people uninterested in the truth. You yourself removed my reference to this peer reviewed paper: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724?journalCode=rftg20 That paper was also linked to in the New York Times piece. The BBC is cited as a source in the wikipedia Lancet article, and I do not see why the New York Times should not be (generally, I'm more interested in the accuracy of the claim being made than the source being used).
Other recent peer-reviewed publications critical of PACE (and there are more too):
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317703786 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317700886 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105317703788 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317700885 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317695801 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317695803 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317697324 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317697323
Those are all letters to the editor. These are not WP:MEDRS sources. Wikipedia is not a blog where you can throw links at things. (btw the journal actually "marks" review articles -- see here for example, at the bottom. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? None of them are letters to the editor. They are all peer-reviewed articles. The ones in the Journal of Health Psychology were invited for a special issue on PACE. The Wilshire one in Fatigue has a 'full article' tab? The first one I clicked on from The Journal of Health Psychology was two-thousand words long, which is rather long for a letter to the editor. OMG - do you think that the systematic review, marked as 'review', is the only peer-reviewed article in that issue of the Journal of Health Psychology? 51.9.238.50 (talk)

let's look at this piece. It is not a research article - there is no research presented in it. It is not a literature review, looking at all the literature. Nope, it is a commentary; a letter to the editor. Please see WP:MEDSEARCH which talks about this a bit. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at all of them. That one piece is a peer-reviewed commentary. And? Are you saying that you cannot distinguish between any of the paper's posted, and letters to the editor? The peer-reviewed paper I had added to this wikipedia Lancet page is here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724?journalCode=rftg20 This article is the first time results for the pre-specifed recovery outcomes laid out in the PACE trial's protocol were published in a peer reviewed paper. Do you think that this was just a letter to the editor? You just referring to MEDRS, without recognising that this Lancet article usefully includes sources like the BBC and all manner of primary sources, is very wikipedia. You included a piece from Slate, didn't you? Everything I've said has been accurate, but you keep making mistakes - why aren't you learning from this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.238.50 (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we are kind of stuck, hm. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're genuinely unable to distinguish between peer reviewed papers and letters to the editor? Sounds like you're stuck. Are you able to see that the article currently cites sources like the BBC? 51.9.238.50 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You want to write content about the science. That needs sources from the scientific literature, not the BBC. And again, content about the scientific dispute is not a matter for this article, but rather for the management of CFS article. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we try to deal with specifics here? I wanted to add to the page's coverage of the PACE trial controversy in a way that informed readers about the nature of the controversy. I added a total of three sentences, providing information a tribunal ordering the release of some trial data, that this data allowed for the calculation of results for the trial's prespecified recovery criteria, and that these results conflicted with claims made in the Lancet about the trial's results. You then removed all the information I added, along with all other information about why the Lancet's coverage of the PACE trial is controversial or has attracted criticism. You also misleadingly characterised critics of the trial as just "journalists and patient advocates", omiting reference to the criticisms made by researchers... even after you had personally removed critical quotes from Bruce Levin and Ronald Davis.
Compare the PACE section you have created to the other sections of this page that deal with controversies related to the Lancet. Do you see that the other sections include information that would allow readers some understanding as to why these issues were controversial? Do you understand why that might by a good thing?
One of the sources I used was the New York Times, who covered the release of the trial's pre-specified recovery criteria. Do you see that other sections of this wikipedia page have used sources like the BBC?
I also included a peer-reviewed paper as a source. Are you still claiming that you're unable to distinguish between this and a letter to the editor? Do you see that other sections of this wikipedia page have used peer-reviewed papers as sources?
Do you think that anything I have written is not true? You have made a number of inaccurate claims, and I do wish that you would think more carefully about the limits of your knowledge before you go on making more false assertions. I do not think that you are fit to write about this topic. 51.9.238.50 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this article is awful and needs cleanup, and your pointing to it, it not helping your argument. What content do you propose to add, that is actually about the journal?
What makes you think that you're up to assessing the quality of this article when you cannot distinguish between peer-reviewed articles and letters to the editor? You want a systematic review on the controversy of the Lancet's tobacco editorial? While I haven't gone through fact-checking it all, assuming that the information provided is accurate, every other section of this wikipedia article is better than what you edited the PACE section to. I'd have written some of the PACE section differently myself, but it was fine until you removed all content that would be useful to someone wanting to understand why the Lancet's role in the PACE trial was controversial. The critical quotes from researchers, including Davis saying “I’m shocked that the Lancet published it"; Horton's portrayal of the trial's critics; the order to release data that challenged claims made in the Lancet: these three paragraphs were useful and accurate. Maybe I'd have made some slight changes to tidy them up, but as my insertion of just three accurate and useful sentences led to this tedious exchange I don't think I can be bothered, and you clearly shouldn't be writing anything about this topic. It should just be put back to how it was.51.9.238.50 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please propose content here on the Talk page content related to the PACE trial that is actually about the Lancet? Would be happy to consider it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should not try to consider it if you're not even able to distinguish between peer-reviewed papers and letters to the editor. Start with the basics. One, very basic, point is that many journals have policies on data sharing, partly because of concern about data being misrepresented (a related example would be FINE's publication at PLoS, which included IPD). The Lancet does not require data sharing, but that does not mean that access to PACE data is unrelated to the Lancet, as their decision to not require data sharing is still one of their policies. If you are going to try to consider this issue I'd really recommend that you first read the articles I linked to abover, and the Lancet's PACE publications (the paper, commentary and Horton comment, ideally along with the other PACE publications too). For the sake of brevity a lot of details are not spelt out here. I don't think that you should try to have an opinion on this.
You made the article worse by cutting this information:
The study has been highly controversial; for example, biostatistician Bruce Levin of Columbia University described the study as "the height of clinical trial amateurism," and Ronald Davis of Stanford University wrote, “I’m shocked that the Lancet published it…The PACE study has so many flaws and there are so many questions you’d want to ask about it that I don’t understand how it got through any kind of peer review.”[1]
Controversy has arisen not just from the published papers but also with the authors' refusal to share data from the study: "Starting in 2011, patients analyzing the study filed Freedom of Information Act requests to learn what the trial’s results would have been under the original protocol. Those were denied along with many other requests about the trial, some on the grounds that the requests were 'vexatious.' The investigators said they considered the requests to be harassment. Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, aggressively defended the trial. In a radio interview, he called the critics 'a fairly small, but highly organized, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have, I would say, actually hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients.'".[2]
In 2016 an Information Tribunal ordered the release of some of the PACE trial's data.[3] This data allowed for the calculation of results for the trials pre-specified recovery criteria, which showed that additional treatment led to no significant improvement in recovery rates over the control condition, with all four the the trial's groups showing recovery rates under 8%.[4][5] In contrast, a commentary published by the Lancet in 2011 had claimed that "the recovery rate of cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy was about 30%".[6]
51.9.238.50 (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to edit that first paragraph to remove the virology.ws reference. Pointlessly, as the information was accurate anyway.
The study has attracted criticism from some patients and researchers.[7] In a 2015 article biostatistician Bruce Levin of Columbia University was quoted saying “The Lancet needs to stop circling the wagons and be open”, and that “one of the tenets of good science is transparency”; while Ronald Davis of Stanford University argued that “the Lancet should step up to the plate and pull that paper".[8]
Controversy has arsen from the authors' refusal to share data from the study: "Starting in 2011, patients analyzing the study filed Freedom of Information Act requests to learn what the trial’s results would have been under the original protocol. Those were denied along with many other requests about the trial, some on the grounds that the requests were 'vexatious.' The investigators said they considered the requests to be harassment. Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, aggressively defended the trial. In a radio interview, he called the critics 'a fairly small, but highly organized, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have, I would say, actually hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients.'".[9]
In 2016 an Information Tribunal ordered the release of some of the PACE trial's data.[10] This data allowed for the calculation of results for the trial's pre-specified recovery criteria, which showed that additional treatment led to no significant improvement in recovery rates over the control condition, with all four the the trial's groups showing recovery rates under 8%.[11][12] In contrast, a commentary published by the Lancet in 2011 had claimed that "the recovery rate of cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy was about 30%".[13]
Also, I thought of your desire for systematic reviews and remembered this 2014 one from AHRQ, that criticises the PACE recovery claims in the section titled "Recovery Outcomes": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK293931/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK293931.pdf I don't think it's a good source to use as, in that section, it gets some details wrong that makes PACE sound worse than it is, and in another section it makes PACE sound better than it is. For those uninterested in accuracy it might be of interest.

References

  1. ^ David Tuller (21 October 2015). "Trial by Error: The Troubling Case of the PACE Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study".
  2. ^ Julie Rehmeyer (13 November 2015). "Hope for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The debate over this mysterious disease is suddenly shifting".
  3. ^ George Faulkner (19 August 2016). "Major breakthrough on PACE trial".
  4. ^ Julie Rehmeyer and David Tuller (18 March 2017). "Getting It Wrong on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome".
  5. ^ Wilshire, C; Kindlon, T; Matthees, A; McGrath, S (2016). "Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial". Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. 5 (1). doi:10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724.
  6. ^ Bleijenberg, G; Knoop, H (2011). "Chronic fatigue syndrome: where to PACE from here?". The Lancet. 377 (9768): 786–788. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60172-4.
  7. ^ Julie Rehmeyer and David Tuller (18 March 2017). "Getting It Wrong on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome".
  8. ^ Julie Rehmeyer (13 November 2015). "Hope for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The debate over this mysterious disease is suddenly shifting".
  9. ^ Julie Rehmeyer (13 November 2015). "Hope for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The debate over this mysterious disease is suddenly shifting".
  10. ^ George Faulkner (19 August 2016). "Major breakthrough on PACE trial".
  11. ^ Julie Rehmeyer and David Tuller (18 March 2017). "Getting It Wrong on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome".
  12. ^ Wilshire, C; Kindlon, T; Matthees, A; McGrath, S (2016). "Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial". Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. 5 (1). doi:10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724.
  13. ^ Bleijenberg, G; Knoop, H (2011). "Chronic fatigue syndrome: where to PACE from here?". The Lancet. 377 (9768): 786–788. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60172-4.
-- 51.9.238.50 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented that with a few tweaks. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to leave this, but I thought that this was too strong given the references used: "leading to a conclusion that the proposed treatment caused more harm than good." Instead I added in some details and a quote from the paper's conclusion. I also think it's good to reference the Lancet commentary with the 30% recovery claim, as that is controversial: patients could report declines from baseline on every one of the trial's outcome measures yet still be classed by that commentary as fulfilling a "strict criterion for recovery". My version is a bit clunky, but I think that's better than being potentially misleading. Also, I'm not used to wikipedia's software, but I think that there was a problem with your formatting of the Slate reference, and I tried to fix that. 51.9.238.50 (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History needed

[edit]

This article probably needs a bit more about the history of the journal - this and this look like useful sources. No time to do it myself right now, might come back, but if anyone else fancies having a go ... PamD 21:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?

[edit]
A new section I wanted to add for the controversies

Labeling Taiwan as a province of China (2019)

[edit]

In June 2019, The Lancet published a medical paper[1] that lists Taiwan as a province of China. After the publication The Lancet was criticized, with tons of comments crammed on its Facebook page[2], and The Lancet responded by saying: “This paper follows the guidelines and protocols of the United Nations and World Health Organisation, which reference Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic of China.”, but Ministry of Health and Welfare spokesman Wang Che-chao said "The content of the study is inconsistent with the fact that Taiwan is not a province of China.”[3]

Another controversy is that Taiwan’s medical system does not belong to part of China’s but the paper includes Taiwan in charts for comparison. The Taiwan Medical Association said “The paper has strayed from the truth, as Taiwan and China have separate medical systems.” The Lancet responded by saying: “The paper was written with the scientific rigor and thorough data analysis required by editors of The Lancet.”, adding that “The Lancet stands behind this study and its robust estimates of health in China.”[4]

References

  1. ^ Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 The Lancet. 24 June 2019.
  2. '^ The Lancets official Facebook reply. Facebook. 27 June 2019.
  3. ^ "Taiwan to protest against Lancet for labeling it part of China". Focus Taiwan. 28 June 2019.
  4. ^ "Ministry to protest ‘Lancet’ over paper denying statehood". Taipei Times. 29 June 2019.
 Not done: You have directly copied and pasted several chunks of your proposed edit from the sources (e.g. "its Facebook page has been inundated with angry comments from people with Internet connections demanding that the journal change its designation of Taiwan, with some asking the journal to withdraw the paper, claiming that its methodology is problematic and the results are therefore biased." and "follows the guidelines and protocols of the United Nations and World Health Organization" and "replied in a Facebook comment Thursday that it stands behind the study and its robust estimates of health in China." from [3] This is unacceptable on wikipedia. Please see WP:PLAG and WP:CLOP. NiciVampireHeart 15:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very appreciate for your help. I've done many revisions as to WP:PLAG and WP:CLOP issue. Perry520 (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling Taiwan as a province of China (2019) is NOT WP:UNDUE

[edit]

This issue has been published in Taiwan and foreign media. Taiwan medical association (中華民國醫師公會全國聯合會) is the association of all physicians in Taiwan, whose statement about this event is thus representative. The vise president of Taiwan is also included in this issue, which stands the official point of view in Taiwan. As such, this event is by no means non-significant, at least it's no less significant than the existing controversies listed, in which the different POV is only held by only a few people.

Related references are all included in the latest edit. [4]--111.243.232.158 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a storm in a tea cup and only a blip in the history of this journal. If people are still talking about this a year from now, perhaps two or three lines could be included. But this breathless semi-newspaper stuff is UNDUE. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The event added in August 2014 is added in a few months, and the controversy in August 2010 is added in a few days. Requiring this issue to be talked about at least one year from now is injustice, and doesn't seem to be supported by any of current policy in Wikipedia.--111.243.232.158 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Controversy_at_The_Lancet 77.161.58.217 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its massively undue, has this caused any real controversy outside Taiwan?Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was seriously undue. That's a massive section for what boils down to, "nationalists in Taiwan were angry online at a medical journal." Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that was definitely undue. So are many recently included materials, for example "WHO-funded Coronavirus study on 2-metre distancing (2020)". Yes, someone has published a "controversial" study, meaning study it was challenged later in other publications. That was not even a retraction. This happens all the time. How is that a notable controversy involving the journal, rather than only authors of the publication? So, I removed a couple of things. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the Trump administration

[edit]

Is this really a controversy? Haven't everyone criticized the administration's poor handling? —PaleoNeonate – 23:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that it isn't really noteworthy. There's another section which is more problematic in the "does this really belong here" sense, I've commented it for the time being to see if anybody agrees. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy surrouding Letter of February 19, 2020

[edit]

Thanks RandomCanadian for what I am sure is a good faith reversion of the issue of the February 19, 2020 letter. Do I understand that you would prefer that this be under 'political controversies' instead of 'scientific controversies'? It seems to me that what people who have objected to this letter find objectionable about it is that it shuts down scientific discussion on a topic of scientific importance, and, especially considering the prestige of The Lancet, thus undermines and degrades scientific norms more broadly; for that reason, it seems to be a scientific controversy more than anything else (there is of course no question of retractions being involved; I took the 'and' in the heading to be disjunctive). Would you propose that I include a shorter version of this text? Finally, perhaps this is unnecessary, but I would again like to emphasize that I have absolutely no interest in promoting one story or another about the emergence of COVID-19 or implicating or exculpating any particular actors who may or may not have been involved. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Publius In The 21st Century:Two questions, two answers:
  1. "Political controversy": The problem isn't so much that as it is partly a scientific controversy, but rather that the section includes more obviously "retracted" papers, and the statement by Daszak is not a "retracted" paper. Also, the controversy over the origins of COVID is also political so that would likely be a better section.
  2. Yes, shorter would be much better. I tried trimming some of the existing text as an example. I didn't check thoroughly but if it includes the paper by Wade that also needs removing.
Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Thanks very much for this. My own understanding is that what makes this episode controversial (for the scientific community at large, and also in my own personal view) concerns The Lancet's relationship to scientific norms and standards; I would be inclined to suggest that there be a section for scientific controversies and a separate (or sub-)section for retracted papers, since not all scientific controversies need center around the retraction of papers. Nevertheless, it is true that there is a political component, and, especially having had a look at your page and the nature of the debate here, I am happy to defer to your obvious experience, expertise, and good will. How does the current state of play look to you? Finally, let me add that I appreciate very much your efforts to keep the level of discourse here as high as possible; I personally am grateful for the constructive approach you have taken with respect to entries I have written. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: I have a few remaining quibbles with e.g. your remarks in the last justification for editing, but I think these are minor disagreements two well-informed people of good faith can have and am very happy to leave things as they currently are. Thanks again for the constructive process here - I'm impressed by the exchange and appreciate it very much. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is section entitled "Political controversies". It starts from: "The Lancet has taken a political stand on several important medical and non-medical issues...". But merely a publication of some materials (even if two groups of scientists unrelated to the journal make rebuttals) would not make the journal a party in a political controversy. Only the scientists who exchange opinions could be parties. To became involved as a journal, it must publish an editorial. For example, it say "A December 2003 editorial by the journal, titled "How do you sleep at night, Mr Blair?"...". That is indeed an involvement of the journal. Did the Journal publish an editorial on this matter? If it did, I agree it belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, "The Lancet has taken a political stand". But what is the political stand by the Journal on this subject exactly? My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that this controversy is not WP:DUE because it is limited to clearly definable political controversies where The Lancet is a party? If so, we can just rename the section and split them out by their political or scientific nature. You can see from the quality and quantity of sources cited above that this controversy, political or otherwise, surpasses the threshold of notability and dueness for inclusion here. Regarding the editorial process, it does not entail writing editorials only, but also accepting/rejecting signed opinion pieces from scientists. Regardless of that, the main controversy as covered in reliable sources is about the COI of the real lead author, the fact that the named lead author recanted his position, and that the letter had a chilling effect on the scientific debate on the origins of the virus. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This also brings the issue of WP:V I'm hinting at in my comment - if there's no source to substantiate the "The Lancet has taken a political stand [on this issue]"; then it can't go in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But... some of the sources above [5] say about "Lancet team" investigating the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. I am not sure what they are talking about, but if the Lancet was directly involved by sending a team (what team?), then it could be included. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The team TaiwanNews.com is referring to is the Lancet's Investigation team, on which Daszak was included. Daszak's inclusion on this team, and also on the WHO's team was highly controversial, precisely because he was found by USRTK to have organized and written the letter, putting Calisher as the lead author (which in academia, the lead author is usually the main writer). This is explained in more detail in the Le Monde and USRTK articles. Did you read these? 2.96.240.198 (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apology, self-reverted. Yes, after reading all this, including this, it appears that Lancet is involved and deeply, but it needs to be explained why. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Is there any source here which specifically supports that The Lancet is being criticised for the letter (instead of supporting the mere fact the letter is controversial)? Otherwise, as far as I can see, this is typical WP:COATRACK of material which is already and better covered in other places (one of the main parts of the controversy were the connections with Chinese scientists of one of the authors - that is covered at the respective author's page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources describe this letter as controversial and criticise/question the Lancet's editorial integrity for not disclosing the COI of its lead author. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that rather criticism of the lead author? It's not the Lancet's job to disclose author's conflicts of interests (apparent or real) - that is usually, as far as I can see, left to the authors, and then yes if they fail to disclose it they (the authors, not the publication) get into trouble. Letter being controversial does not mean the controversy is about The Lancet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with RC here. it's not The Lancet's job to police the COIs of its authors. They just open the door for COIs to be reported and make sure they're placed prominently. That's their due dilligence. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I self-reverted and leave this matter to you guys since you know this subject better. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expand history section?

[edit]

This was touched upon by PamD six years ago on this talk page on the need of a history section. While one has been added, it is very brief at only four short sentences, especially compared to the much lengthier sections on speciality journals, political controversies, and scientific controversies. Given that plenty of information on several landmark papers and historical details from peer-reviewed sources are available in TWL, IMO overall it would be due to expand the history section. Therefore, I have added a expand section tag. However, if anyone objects to my tag please discuss here. VickKiang (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"LancetGate" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect LancetGate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § LancetGate until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lancet&oldid=1194736479"