View Single Post
  #3  
Old June 11th 04, 08:23 AM
James Annan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fundamental error in "Trends in serious head injuries..." Cook and Sheikh 2003Fundamental error in "Trends in serious head injuries..." Cook and Sheikh 2003

(Dorre) wrote in message om...
James Annan wrote in message ...
I sent the following to "Injury prevention on-line" over a week ago, but
it shows no sign of being published and my follow-up email has not been
answered. I guess someone might as well see it, typo and all. Isn't the
internet great for vanity publishing?


Sometimes these things take a little longer. Have you checked whether
you are in excess of the formal word limit?


There's not a hard limit, it took some searching to find out that I
might be slightly in excess of the guideline figure but I can't
imagine them agonising over that detail without telling me.

The editor may also think that the nature of your criticism means he
should seek advice before publishing it.


Well, it is possible, but a bit rude to not only not tell me of this
off his own bat (once he had exceeded his own time limit) but to
ignore my email asking what was going on. Also, IP have a deliberate
policy of wading in to controversial areas, and my letter is a lot
more polite and less controversial than several others they have
recently published ("Injury Prevention injured itself by publishing
such unprofessional work. A retraction is warranted, with support for
this methodology and its spurious conclusions disavowed.")

OTOH, a couple of years ago Science refused to publish a
straightforward correction to one of the most famous papers measuring
global warming over recent decades (it overestimated the trend by
about 10% due to a numerical error). It continues to be cited
regularly. So nothing really surprises me any more...

James
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home