Larry Husten of Cardiobrief just tipped me off about this. He writes:
Here’s something I’ve never seen: 12 minutes before the scheduled publication of a paper the journal publishing the paper announced that it had “made the decision not to publish” the paper. Here’s what happened:
Last Thursday the JAMA/Archives media team issued a press package to accredited media about several articles scheduled for publication in Archives of Internal Medicine on Monday (today) at 4 PM ET. The package included a press release (see below) about an article, “Stress Reduction in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation and Health Education in African Americans.” The first author was Robert Schneider, MD, from the Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa. Co-authors from the same institution were: Maxwell Rainforth PhD, Sanford Nidich. EdD, Carolyn Gaylord-King, PhD, John Salerno, PhD, and Charles Alexander, PhD. Two other authors, Clarence Grim and Theodore Kotchen are from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
Today (Monday), at 3:48 PM ET, 12 minutes before the scheduled publication of the paper, the following message appeared in my inbox:
Subject: Important Notice from Archives of Internal Medicine — Please Open Immediately!
The editorial office of the Archives of Internal Medicine has made the decision not to publish, “Stress Reduction in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation and Health Education in African Americans,” by Schneider et al, and the accompanying Commentary by Mehta and Bairey Merz that was to post Online First at 3 PM central time today.
The decision is to allow time for review and statistical analysis of additional data not included in the original paper that the authors provided less than 24 hours before posting. We apologize for the short notice, but hope you will understand and not run your stories on this study today.
Sincerely,
JAMA/Archives Media Relations
More details on the Cardiobrief blog.
What’s more strange is that I’m supposed to be on that mailing list as well, but I received no such message. As Husten predicts, we’ll likely be hearing much more about this.
ADDENDUM: See Husten’s followup piece on Tuesday, June 28.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Kevin Lomangino
June 28, 2011 at 11:19 amThis study was the subject of a very enthusiastic story in the UK Telegraph which, if I recall correctly, did not mention the uncertainty associated with covering a study that hasn’t been published yet. I checked back to verify this and the story seems to have been taken down. While we don’t know how this will play out yet, it seems to support the need to look very cautiously on data that haven’t been presented for scientific scrutiny.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like