Monday, August 27, 2007

Announcing the first Medical Journal Editor Pissicator competition

This new annual competition is for the scientific editor who has contributed to declining scientific integrity in the most creative manner. E-mail Deadline for submission (with appropriate details) by 31 October 2007 here. The relevant obscuring of science need not have taken place during the award year (cf. Nobel Prize).

The winning editor will receive an original of this beautiful Bamforth Card and a copy of Hello! magazine. The winning nominator will receive 5000 Sudanese Old Pounds.

Winners will be announced in November 2007 on the World Wide Web ( Winners will be notified before the WWW publication date via email. Multiple entries from the same applicant may be submitted. Editors may nominate themselves for this award if they wish. Relevant non-winning nominations may be published. This is a serious competition, so please do submit your nomination. The inclination of some medical journals to collude with and hide shoddy science is an important problem that damages science and actual persons. All decisions will be final and there will be no re-appeal on the final decision.

Earlier|Later|Main Page


Anonymous said...

I assume you meant Sudanese Old Pound, the current one is worth something.

Aubrey Blumsohn said...

Too true :)

Anonymous said...

I nominate Richard Horton of the Lancet - for his cow towing to the DoH in his dealing with the Andrew Wakefield MMR publication. Wakefield is of course the first scientist to fail to declare a conflict of interest - in this case monies which were not paid to Wakefeild himself. The Wakefield paper is of course not great science.

Anonymous said...

Does count as a kind of Medical Journal - given it is purportedly:

"the web log of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI), a forum offering rigorous and compelling research on the most critical issues affecting current drug policy."

I'm sorry, but I can't read the reference to 'Public Interest' or 'rigorous and compelling research' without laughing.

I can't supply you with his real name either as so many blogs refer to him as something rude, but ever so fitting, and extremely similar to Wonk that now the nickname is permanently and deeply embedded in my mind.

I could go and look but why bother, its hardly worth it.

His forum is rather unusual compared to the average forum in that he edits comments to remove any small snippet of genuine scientific data contained therein, then alters and distorts the rest to suit his view before publishing and replying to it. He completes this extremely handy process by not printing the comment of complaint that inevitably follows, thus ensuring nobody is any the wiser.

BTW, even though I know I can't possibly win by submitting an editor of a medical journal that has so little, if any, connection with science - but was well worth the immense joy and that satisfying tinge of revenge of entering anyway - could you make that the current New Sudanese Pound? :)

Anonymous said...

I nominate the editor of the BMJ.


Nomination Number 1 is for allowing a piece of obfuscating material to sully the journal, which material spends more time speculating on who's personal beliefs are what - without knowing if they are or not - than it does raising important questions about the serious scientific and ethical issues regarding the Gilberg Affair.

Nomination Number 2 is for either emphasizing in bold red - or not removing the emphasis in bold red if it was submitted in that state by the article's author Jonathan Gornall - each point that has nothing whatsoever to do with the serious scientific and ethical issues of the Gilberg affair - which, if colour is now the 'in BMJ thing', should have received a paint palette's worth of attention.

Two nominations for seperate issues where both are so closely connected with each other that one couldn't be picked without the other, must be worth double the prize which might amount to something. Perhaps 1p?

Aubrey Blumsohn said...

I have had a number of nominations for the BMJ sadly, and I must agree with the above.

So far there have been 15 nominations (including the few posted as comments here). Keep sending them.

Anonymous said...

I nominate the Lancet for blind acceptance of 'safety and efficacy' data given by Merck in its appallingly reckless editorial on the HPV vaccination Gardasil.

Also for the ARROGANT way and without regard for the safety of children it uses its influence as a Medical Journal to try to bring about EU changes and enforced HPV vaccinations throughout Europe in its announcement that:

"For effective and long-term eradication of HPV, all adolescents must be immunised. Data from the vaccine trials in boys are urgently needed; in the mean time, EU member states should lead by making the vaccinations mandatory for all girls aged 11–12 years.

Anonymous said...

Which Journal Editor won the Medical Journal Editor Pissicator competition?

Whoever it was he or she was up against some very stiff competition for the award lol.