Validity of Canadian studies
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
EDITOR—Concerning the Chandra debate1: if Chandra were to provide the details of the study methodology and the original data as requested by his critics, wouldn't the debate end?
The scientific process encompasses (a) the careful conduct of the researcher and his or her team, or both, and the acquisition of credible data; (b) the description of the research in a manuscript, with presentation of the data and logical interpretation, such that fellow scientists can reproduce the data; (c) a peer review system of the manuscript before publication; (d) the scrutiny of the data by readers of the paper after publication; and (e) the independent reproducibility of the data on the basis of the methods reported in the paper in the long term.
In the past Nutrition's readers have occasionally raised issues based on (d), and these have always been satisfactorily resolved by open discussion and, if necessary to satisfy statistical concerns, by disclosure of the data.
With regard to Chandra's study, the controversy over the veracity of the data could have been resolved at an early stage, and can still be easily resolved were Chandra to provide the details of the study methods and the original data to his critics. Until now, despite contrary claims, he has failed to provide specific answers to questions about the methods or access to the data. Why?
Michael M Meguid, editor in chief, Nutrition
Upstate Medical University, University Hospital, 750 East Adams Street, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA meguidm@upstate.edu
Competing interests: MMM has no financial or intellectual conflict of interest.
References
White C. Three journals raise doubts on validity of Canadian studies. BMJ 2004;328: 67. (10 January.)
The scientific process encompasses (a) the careful conduct of the researcher and his or her team, or both, and the acquisition of credible data; (b) the description of the research in a manuscript, with presentation of the data and logical interpretation, such that fellow scientists can reproduce the data; (c) a peer review system of the manuscript before publication; (d) the scrutiny of the data by readers of the paper after publication; and (e) the independent reproducibility of the data on the basis of the methods reported in the paper in the long term.
In the past Nutrition's readers have occasionally raised issues based on (d), and these have always been satisfactorily resolved by open discussion and, if necessary to satisfy statistical concerns, by disclosure of the data.
With regard to Chandra's study, the controversy over the veracity of the data could have been resolved at an early stage, and can still be easily resolved were Chandra to provide the details of the study methods and the original data to his critics. Until now, despite contrary claims, he has failed to provide specific answers to questions about the methods or access to the data. Why?
Michael M Meguid, editor in chief, Nutrition
Upstate Medical University, University Hospital, 750 East Adams Street, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA meguidm@upstate.edu
Competing interests: MMM has no financial or intellectual conflict of interest.
References
White C. Three journals raise doubts on validity of Canadian studies. BMJ 2004;328: 67. (10 January.)