scholarly journals Contextualising UK moorland burning studies: geographical versus potential sponsorship-bias effects on research conclusions

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee E. Brown ◽  
Joseph Holden
Keyword(s):  
Prescribed Burning ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
List Type ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Extreme Caution ◽  
Geographical Variability ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Policy Community

AbstractIt has recently been claimed that geographical variability resulted in false conclusions from some studies examining the impacts of prescribed moorland burning, including the Effects of Moorland Burning on the Ecohydrology of River basins (EMBER) project. We provide multiple lines of evidence to contradict these claims and show that the EMBER results are reliable.A systematic review of the literature also confirms that EMBER conclusions were not out of line with the majority of other published UK studies on responses to prescribed burning of Sphagnum growth/abundance, soil properties, hydrological change, or peat exposure and erosion.We suggest that sponsorship-bias is associated with some recent research conclusions related to moorland burning. Thus, it is of grave concern when sponsorship or other potential conflicts of interest are not declared on publications related to moorland burning.We show that sponsorship and other conflicts of interest were not declared on a recent publication that criticised the EMBER project, thereby entirely undermining that critical assessment.Policy implications: The EMBER findings are robust. Our study suggests that publications on moorland burning that have been funded by pro-burning groups should be treated with extreme caution by the policy community. Publications that have been shown to have failed to declare conflicts of interest from the outset, when first submitted to a journal, should be disregarded by the policy community because peer reviewers and editors may have been unable to evaluate those pieces of work properly.

scholarly journals Whither scientific debate? A rebuttal of “Contextualising UK moorland burning studies: geographical versus potential sponsorship-bias effects on research conclusions” by Brown and Holden (bioRxiv 2019; 731117)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Andrew Ashby ◽  
Andreas Heinemeyer
Keyword(s):  
Prescribed Burning ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Management Policy ◽  
Extreme Caution ◽  
Scientific Debate ◽  
Covariate Effects ◽  
Report Data ◽  
Valid Evidence

To read the preprint which this publication seeks to criticise, see here:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/731117v1To read our original peer-reviewed critique of the EMBER project, see here:https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.134761. We recently published a peer-reviewed critique of the EMBER report. In a preprint response, Brown & Holden (2019) resorted to making spurious accusations of undeclared competing interests, a series of disingenuous arguments about the robustness of the EMBER results, as well as false claims of sponsorship bias. We feel that much of what they wrote falls well outside the realm of respectable scientific debate.2. Crucially, however, Brown & Holden (2019) did not address our previous criticisms by providing a robust reanalysis of the EMBER report data that correctly accounted for site and covariate effects within the same statistical model. In our reply, we also present additional flaws which further call into question the EMBER results.3. Brown & Holden (2019) also produced a literature review to show that the EMBER results are not out of line with the broader evidence base. However, they included papers not directly relevant to the EMBER report we criticised. Therefore, we have carried out a more accurate review. Our results indicate that the quantity and quality of available literature make it difficult to contextualise the findings of the EMBER report.4. Finally, Brown & Holden (2019) present an error-stricken analysis of grouse moor sponsorship bias within the prescribed burning literature. Their claim that grouse moor funded research “should be treated with extreme caution by the policy community” goes well beyond what their data allows them to say. Not only does such a claim egregiously impugn the reputation of many scientists in the field, but it also contradicts the long-established notion that it is the quality of the science that should drive evidence-led policy. 5. Policy Implications. The results of the EMBER report remain unreliable. Therefore, for the time being, it should not be considered as valid evidence by policymakers. We suggest that the data from the EMBER report is reanalysed to address the shortfalls that we identify. Only then can the EMBER data and findings be used to inform upland land management policy. Also, to provide clarity to policymakers, we recommend that an independent audit into evidence reliability is carried out across the prescribed burning evidence base.

PS01.105: PANCREATITIS IN THE ESOPHAGEAL ECTOPIC PANCREAS: A RARE CONDITION WITH DIFFERENT PRESENTATIONS! TREATMENTS AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Sergio Szachnowicz ◽  
Rubens Sallum ◽  
Hilton Libanori ◽  
Edno Bianchi ◽  
Andre Duarte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chest Pain ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Acute Inflammation ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Elevated Serum ◽  
Pancreatic Tissue ◽  
Ectopic Pancreas ◽  
Esophageal Wall ◽  
Review Of The Literature

Abstract Background Ectopic pancreas is an extremely rare genetic malformation in the esophagus. It is defined by pancreatic tissue outside the pancreas and usually presents as a subepithelial lesion in the esophagus. To date, there are fewer than 15 patients reported in the literature. Methods We present 2 cases of pancreatitis in the esophageal ectopic pancreas with different presentation, treatment and development, as well as a review of the literature. Results 1. A 48-year-old woman admitted to the ER with acute dysphagia and chest pain. There were elevation of amylasemia and lipasemia, as well as presence of a tumor in the Gastroesophageal junction with hypersignal at the CT scan, suggesting acute inflammation. An echoendoscopy with biopsy, diagnosed ectopic pancreas in the distal esophagus. The patient was then submitted to laparoscopic resection of subepithelial tumor of the cardia, recovered by a fundoplication. The specimen confirmed pancreatic tissue with acute inflammation. 2. A 33-year-old woman with a history of episodic chest pain confused with GERD, nausea and vomiting pain episodes accompanied by elevated serum amylase and lipase levels. She was submitted to an ERCP without alterations to investigate the clinical complains. After some crisis she was hospitalized with a septic condition, where a CT scan revealed a cystic lesion in the lower mediastinum in the esophageal wall. Endoscopy was performed, showing a drainage orifice with purulent secretion in the cardia. She was treated with antibiotics and fasting. She had two more crises and was referred to our specialized service. Thoracoscopic subtotal esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis was performed for treatment of a suspected esophageal duplication cyst with recurrent infections. The specimen showed the presence of organized pancreatic tissue characterizing ectopic pancreas complicated with chronic pancreatitis. Conclusion The ectopic esophageal pancreas can be present as a differential of these lesions. The second case, was first admitted at a secondary care unit and the diagnosis was delayed, probably leading to a worse development and necessity of a esophagectomy. In the literature, there is only one description of 1 case of recurrent pancreatitis. We have shown that complications can range from dysphagia to abscess, requiring more invasive treatment. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

scholarly journals Conflicts of interest policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 194-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zubin Master ◽  
Kelly Werner ◽  
Elise Smith ◽  
David B. Resnik ◽  
Bryn Williams-Jones
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Peer Reviewers

scholarly journals Indigenous Knowledges and Scholarly Publishing

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Boyd
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Sound Source ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
White Male ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Intended Purpose ◽  
Peer Reviewers

At its core, academic knowledge production is predicated on Western notions of knowledge historically grounded in a Euro-American, White, male worldview. As a component of academic knowledge production, scholarly publishing shares the same basis of Whiteness. It excludes knowledge that doesn’t conform to White, Western notions of knowledge, forces conformity to (and therefore reinforcement of) a Western standard of writing/knowledge, and leads to a reverence of peer-reviewed literature as the only sound source of knowledge. As a tool of scholarly publishing and the editorial process, blind peer review, though perhaps well-intentioned, is fraught with problems, especially for BIPOC researchers and writers, because it fails in its intended purpose to drastically reduce or eliminate bias and racism in the peer review and editorial processes; shields peer reviewers and editors against accusations of bias, racism, or conflicts of interest; and robs BIPOC, and particularly Indigenous, writers and researchers from having the opportunity to develop relationships with those that are reviewing and publishing their work.

scholarly journals Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

2013 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 600-608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armen Yuri Gasparyan ◽  
Lilit Ayvazyan ◽  
Nurbek A. Akazhanov ◽  
George D. Kitas
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Biomedical Publications
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document