Most of the time when a person is watching a research drama (like the connection of the XMRV retrovirus and ME/CFS or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) unfold with opinion (s) and contradicting research on both sides, that person is quiet.
Not so with me any longer, because I’m not sure we’re comparing apples to apples. To begin this discussion, read about this week’s happenings and what we can expect next week. Then let me know what you think about this opinion piece and my “publication” concerns:
“On January 22, Dr. Judy Mikovits, PhD, director of research for the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease, conducted a 2½-hour XMRV seminar in Santa Barbara that was streamed live online to an audience of more than 1,100,” reports ProHealth, plus a video on this event is due out early next week.
Sponsored jointly by the HHV-6 Foundation and Prohealth, this presentation plus a question and answer session covered many areas evident in this debate.
Per information at ProHealth.com:
- a) Interesting details, clarifications, insights, and plans that patients and researchers have speculated about since October 2009 (since discovery of the XMRV retrovirus in ME/CFS patients’ blood)
- b) The latest non-confirmation effort by UK researchers, as published in PLoS, the Public Library of Science and a non-profit organization.
Now, to highlight what could be amiss in this situation, I’ve heard that…
The UK contingent, which did not find a connection between XMRV and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, paid for having their article and views published in PLoS. (Keep reading below.)
Dr. Judy Mikovits confirmed this fact! “They paid to have their study published in the Public Library of Science, and it was then picked up by Science (magazine).” She also suspects that UK-based insurance companies are behind attempts to disparage the work done by her and the Whittemore Petersen Institute.
So you decide or question at will about a research entity that pays for publication in an online journal and then is, in turn, re-published in a magazine. (Now… I have nothing against Science Magazine; they are a great news media publication. But, they do not rise to the level of a peer-reviewed medical journal.)
And from the PLoS principles section listed above and the publication cost paragraph listed below, they probably don’t rise to that standard either. I have never heard of any respected peer-reviewed journal allowing the practice of someone paying them to be published! If I’m wrong, heaven help us! What could we ever believe to be true again?
For your reading pleasure and edification, here is PLoS’s policy on pubication cost of someone’s material:
Why should I have to pay to publish my paper?
It costs money to produce a peer-reviewed, edited, and formatted article that is ready for online publication, and to host it on a server that is accessible around the clock. Prior to that, a public or private funding agency has already paid a great deal more money for the research to be undertaken in the interest of the public. This real cost of “producing” a paper can be calculated by dividing your laboratory’s annual budget by the number of papers published. We ask that—as a small part of the cost of doing the research—the author, institution, or funding agency pays a fee, to help cover the actual cost of the essential final step, the publication. (As it stands, authors now often pay for publication in the form of page or color charges.) Many funding agencies now support this view.
It’s up to you and the medical establishment to decide what you believe to be true.
Later this week at ProHealth, you can expect to see:
- An article featuring Dr. Mikovits’ answers to many questions that were submitted to her in advance by e-mail and may not have been covered in the presentation.
- Downloadable copies of the slide set used.
- Summaries of highlights from the seminar and discussion period.
This should be exciting. Whether the XMRV retrovirus plays an active role in causing ME/CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) or not remains to be proven by way of the validation of a scientifically established, rigorous process. As for me, I’m simply waiting for the “proven” results and trying to be patient!
Next week I will post Dr. Mikovits’s video or a link to it.
Have a great Sunday,
Cinda Crawford, host of the Health Matters Show
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Crowhed 05.10.10 at 3:01 pm
I came across this while searching for other info on the XMRV debate, and feel obligated to correct a couple items;
“(Now… I have nothing against Science Magazine; they are a great news media publication. But, they do not rise to the level of a peer-reviewed medical journal.)”
The journal Science (which is the ‘magazine’ being referenced) is indeed a peer reviewed journal. One of the top ‘impact factor’ journals in all of science.
PLoS is also a peer-reviewed journal, and while authors pay a ‘per-page’ fee when their manuscript is accepted for publication, this in no way should be construed as ‘paying to publish’. It is industry standard and is assumed that the authors will pay to defray the cost of publication because the journals have such a limited subscription base. Grants funding the research often pay this cost.
The journal Science also charges per-page fees, as does Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and most other peer-reviewed journals.
There is no conspiracy here. There is also no ‘bribery’ going on, either.
Cinda Crawford 05.12.10 at 12:51 pm
The post you’re referring to on my blog was done almost 4 months ago and, as I entitled it, it was an opinion piece only. If I thought that the UK efforts rose to the level of scrutiny and matched the WPI criteria for the test run, I might not have been so opinionated. But each of us is entitled to our opinion. Whether PLoS scrupulously runs its “journal” up the standards of a normal peer-reviewed is journal is up to it and its audience of believers or skeptics to decide. Personally, I hope that all sides of this debate about XMRV’s involvement with ME/CFS continue until the facts are laid out- clearly, uncompromisingly and forever for all to see. Right now, there are still WAY TO MANY QUESTIONS! (More than the answers, that’s for sure!)