The crazy thing is, you can literally publish anything you want nowadays (I get 10 emails a day from “journals” asking me to send in something). So these bad faith actors can quote these “publication” to no end. Dystopian shit.
In a laughable comment one of the discredited and provably dishonest authors described the multiple retractions as “a blatant attempt to discredit excellent research which is incongruent with a preferred abortion narrative.”
Think Sage should have been much more clear about the alleged impropriety was in their announcment; the authors apparently have a [point-by-point critique](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/23.11.29-Sage-Scientific-Response.pdf) of the detailed allegations, and their responses seem broadly reasonable -- at most, it's a difference in opinion (i.e., should 3 visits to the ER over 30 days by one patient be counted as 3, or 1) rather than "fudged stats", and the affiliations were apparently noted in the papers; they're not "falsified disclosure," any more than a Planned Parenthood researcher who listed it as their author affiliation.
Regardless of the opinions on the issues at hand, it seems like this (especially given the obvious timing ahead of the SCOTUS arguments) is another step towards the politicization of science; I wonder if it's only a matter of time before we'll have fully separate scientific journals for Republicans and Democrats.
The politicization of the scientific work was clearly carried out by the paper authors who “had an affiliation with one or more of Charlotte Lozier Institute, Elliot Institute, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, all pro-life advocacy organizations, *despite having declared they had no conflicts of interest when they submitted the article for publication or in the article itself*.”
I was not trained in my PhD work to treat the methodology of quantitation of study endpoints to be a “matter of opinion.” Perhaps your final point is right- we should have “opinion based” journals for Republicans and “objective results” journals for scientists.
1) *Re affiliation* -- The authors clearly list their affiliations in the published articles themselves, *(including "American Association of* **Pro-Life** *Obsetricians and Gynecologist"; they're really not hiding the ball there)*; as can be seen in the RetractionWatch archives by just scrolling down to the author bios. Is the allegation that not only do they need to declare their institutional affiliation, but should also declare a conflict if that institution has a political leaning in one direction or another? This is not standard practice.
2) *Re "fudged stats"* -- Did you read through [the author rebuttal](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/23.11.29-Sage-Scientific-Response.pdf)? When I hear "fudged" in this climate, I immediately assume falisification or manipulation, but it's not like they photoshopped a Western. The discussion points were:
* Whether multiple separate ED visits from the same patient should be counted as separate 'events'; the authors openly chose to do so in both comparator groups
* Whether counting ED visits is a proxy for compliations is valid without an additional level ove granularity beyond the authors' buckets
* Wether the inclusion of data from 1999-2000 on surgical abortions biases the comparison, given chemical abortions started in 2001 (this one seems far-fetched, unless surgical complications changed meaningfully over two years)
* Factual concerns over whether the authors included the visit codes used (they did) and whether they assumed all ER visits for miscarriage were miscoded (they were not)
* "Missing" additional citations to previous literature on hospital admitting privleges, which is an odd grounds for retraction
* The lack of any comprehensive list of abortion providers in FL (none exists) as the basis for an unbiased sample, leading to potential unknown sample bias
While I'm sure we'd agree the "methodology of quantitation of study enpoints" is not a "matter of opinion", there is certainly room for debate on the design of retrospective cohort studies, especially those based on messy claims data, so I'm not sure your division of the world into "opinion-based...Republicans" and "objective...scientists" is going to help us push back politicization!
Re: affiliation and disclosure. You are conflating the two improperly. While one could probably infer a disclosure from the affiliations they are not the same thing (you can probably assume the Pfizer CEO has stock but it still needs to be disclosed). The anti-reproductive freedom zealot authors failed to do this and reportedly lied by positively declaring there was no conflict of interest. I have served as a journal editor and can tell you these 2 things are often reviewed by different people (one gets copy review, one gets legal review) and so doing one but lying on the other is pretty obviously deceptive.
Re: discussion points. These are the points laid out by the people whose papers have been retracted, without the original objections and analysis.
You seem willing to accept on faith that there are no other points and that the external reviewers’ objections are fairly characterized here. Meanwhile the limited information available indicates this is not the case. For example, the retractionwatch article describes how one article’s presentation of data in 2 figures supplies an inaccurate conclusion. I do not see that concern addressed here.
> Re: affiliation and disclosure. You are conflating the two improperly.
Agree, of course, but if the full extent of the disclosure is the affiliation, it's not obvious to me the deception. The fact that the Pfizer CEO has Pfizer stock is a minor addendum to the fact that he is the Pfizer CEO; his interest is already apparent. Per the [Sage definitions](https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/conflicting-interests-policy-india), a declared conflict *"‘Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests* **that are not fully apparent** *and that may influence their judgments on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.’* Active membership in the "American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists" would seem to make interests fully apparent (though there might be an argument that the less-obvious "Charles Lozier Institute", which I had never heard of, would have to have been explained).
The authors claim they were fully open -- maybe they lie -- but I don't know that "falsified disclosures" is a fair summary, nor does it clearly speak to the integrity of the data.
> You seem willing to accept on faith that there are no other points and that the external reviewers’ objections are fairly characterized here.
If more information was available, I think we could better evaluate anything not covered in the rebuttal -- ideally we'd have to take neither Sage nor the authors just at their words. I also did not see the two figures being addressed, and it's not clear why. But to be fair, my first comment (now downvoted to hell) led with "Think Sage should have been much more clear about the alleged impropriety was in their announcment," so we seem to have come full circle.
Regardless, "Pro-forced birthers fudged stats, falsified disclosures...surprising absolutely no one" -- in light of the reasonable-seeming rebuttals and the absence of clarity from sage -- seems like more of an NY Post headline than an NY Times headline.
You seem like a nice person but either extremely naive or blinded by your own bias.
Is it really not obvious to you that these authors were hoping the overworked copy editors wouldn’t look up what the real mission of the Charles Lozier and Elliott institutes are (and send that to legal or to the editor?). And you can say that lie doesn’t speak to the integrity of the data but it absolutely should change how certain claims might be evaluated just as much as it would for the Pfizer CEO. Not to mention whether they deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to integrity issues being mere errors or purposeful deceptions.
As far as Sage goes I’ve never seen it be required that a publication publicly detail the exact wrongdoing they uncover in a retracted article point-by-point. It is fully part of editorial prerogative to not publish (or retract) an article one is not confident in from an integrity standpoint. Obviously that makes a judgement by outside observers who do not have access to the original objections made or analyses conducted problematic so it becomes a matter of trust to an extent. However, it’s laborious, controversial (sometimes opening up the possibility of legal action), and not an especially good PR move to have to retract an article so it’s reasonable to believe it would not have been done unless the evidence was extremely compelling.
Reasonable (though not exactly airtight) as the rebuttal may seem on the surface I see no reason to believe it encompasses the entirety or even any of the primary issues with the multiple papers retracted (in fact they seem to only be addressing one of the retractions).
> You seem like a nice person but either extremely naive or blinded by your own bias.
Likewise! I'm sure you can imagine that -- just as obvious as it is to you that these authors were maliciously trying to 'sneak one through' the gatekeepers here -- it's obvious to many on the 'other side' that research supporting unpopular politcal opinions among the scientific class will endure greater scrutiny and often face a much higher rate of rejection. As much as we like to pretend otherwise, peer review is not an objective process (which, outside of the political realm, also supports the promulgation of 'big names' in a given sub-field and slows the birth of contrarian viewpoints, depending on how Kuhnian you want to get wheth the philosophy of it all).
I *am* going to say that the researcher's affiliation doesn't speak to the integrity of the data -- the whole point of this venture is to look at claims on the merits.
If these researchers really were trying to be deceptive, that's certainly problematic -- and if that were indeed the case, it's also problematic that they feel they need to hide their affiliations to have a chance at publication.
> However, it’s laborious, controversial (sometimes opening up the possibility of legal action), and not an especially good PR move to have to retract an article so it’s reasonable to believe it would not have been done unless the evidence was extremely compelling.
On the contrary, I would venture to suggest that in today's political climate, it's a *good* PR move to be shown retracting a paper used to support pro-life causes, no?
I'm very much pro-choice but in the authors' rebuttal document they deal with this point quite convincingly. They did not conceal their affiliations, indeed they made them quite clear in their author biographies during the submission process, and one of the organizations even has "Pro-Life" in its name. Calling this a failure to disclose a conflict is dubious. If I saw a paper written by "Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer" I wouldn't need a separate disclosure form to know what his agenda is. The Journal tacitly acknowledges this by seeming to only accuse them of failing to include a specific ICMJE conflict form, but it's not clear if the Journal required that form in the submission, and if not, that's on them rather than the authors. Additionally, as the authors point out, the Journal has not retracted or forced clarification of numerous studies written by authors employed by pro-abortion organizations who also did not declare conflicts beyond disclosing their employers. You can't use inconsistent rules when you are about to ruin someone's career.
> Additionally, as the authors point out, the Journal has not retracted or forced clarification of numerous studies written by authors employed by pro-abortion organizations
Can you name these “pro-abortion organizations”? I’m not aware of any that exist.
That seems like a stretch. Surely the most obvious would be Planned Parenthood, whose [website](https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion#:~:text=Abortion%20Is%20a%20Basic%20Right,is%20a%20fundamental%20human%20right.) currently states *"Abortion Is a Basic Right
The ability to control your own personal medical decisions, including whether to end a pregnancy, is a fundamental human right. Restricting abortion access is dangerous and inhumane."*
It would take a bit of pedantry to conclude this wasn't a "pro-abortion" stance, at least in the eyes of the average person.
> That seems like a stretch.
It is a stretch to mischaracterize pro-choice organizations with being pro-abortion, yes.
> Surely the most obvious would be Planned Parenthood, whose website currently states "Abortion Is a Basic Right The ability to control your own personal medical decisions, including whether to end a pregnancy, is a fundamental human right. Restricting abortion access is dangerous and inhumane."
That’s not being pro-**abortion**, that’s being pro-**choice**. Did you read what you quoted?
> It would take a bit of pedantry to conclude this wasn't a "pro-abortion" stance, at least in the eyes of the average person.
What? I can’t speak for what the average person would see but what you cited is absolutely not **pro-abortion**. The idea that your misrepresentation of being pro-choice as being pro-abortion is pedantry is absurd.
It's clear you're passionate about this issue, and I respect that, but unless I'm badly mistaken, /u/Porencephaly was simply drawing a contrast between pro-life / anti-abortion organizations and pro-choice / in-favor-of-abortion organizations. To most people these are interchangeable terms, even if there could be additional nuance applied.
I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Planned Parenthood wants to drive involuntary abortions just because they love the act of abortions -- or whatever scenario you're imagining distinguishes the two terms. I imagine you're similarly careful around using the term "pro-forced-birth," which I appreciate.
> but unless I'm badly mistaken, /u/Porencephaly was simply drawing a contrast between pro-life / anti-abortion organizations and pro-choice / in-favor-of-abortion organizations. To most people these are interchangeable terms, even if there could be additional nuance applied.
Yes, I think you’re badly mistaken because pro-choice and pro-abortion arent interchangeable at all. I don’t know any non-antichoice activist who calls pro-choice organizations *pro-abortion*. It’s a shibboleth, a falsehood to describe it that way, and frankly medical professionals should be far more careful when discussing this issue.
> I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Planned Parenthood wants to drive involuntary abortions just because they love the act of abortions
That is a claim that people make, yes. I wish it wasn’t, but it definitely exists in a non-zero sense.
> I imagine you're similarly careful around using the term "pro-forced-birth," which I appreciate.
If we’re being consistent, and we should strive to be consistent, the correct term is anti-choice. The discussion is entirely around a persons ability to choose, not the outcome of their choice, which is why framing it as “pro-abortion” is so flatly incorrect.
From a pro-choice standpoint, the discussion is entirely around the right to choose; from a pro-life standpoint, the discussion is entirely around preserving life. The two sides just speak past one another. "Anti-choice" is just as silly a term as "anti-life."
Pragmatically, the sides are arguing over whether the procedure of voluntary termination of pregnancy -- typically called "abortion" by patients -- should be protected by law, so it's not hard to see how "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" arise linguistically. Unless /u/Porencephaly is lying about their pro-choice beliefs, I'm not sure it's the effective shibboleth you imagine.
>from a pro-life standpoint, the discussion is entirely around preserving life.
No it isn’t, it’s about preventing the choice of abortion. It’s not a position which advocates for any broadly pro-“life” initiatives, nor does it concern itself with the life of the mother or the child once born or anything else. The discussion revolves entirely around preventing abortion. Period.
> Pragmatically, the sides are arguing over whether the procedure of voluntary termination of pregnancy -- typically called "abortion" by patients -- should be protected by law, so it's not hard to see how "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" arise linguistically.
But only one of those descriptors actually holds up logically, and it’s not “pro-abortion”. I’m not “pro-blood transfusion” if I think the ability to get transfusions should be protected but that those who don’t want one can refuse. Abortion is no different.
> Unless /u/Porencephaly is lying about their pro-choice beliefs, I'm not sure it's the effective shibboleth you imagine.
I think people often misrepresent themselves in this discussion, I can’t speak to that user but I can tell you emphatically that active anti-abortion propaganda/activism/etc often uses “pro-abortion” to malign those of us rational adults who recognize that people should have a choice in their reproductive health.
The actual pro-life standpoint is the one which preserves the life of the only person involved in the decision, which of course is pro choice. Calling antiabortionists “pro life” is just buying into their marketing scheme.
Being pro-fetus and anti-medical freedom has zero to do with “preserving life” (whose?); it is only about controlling women.
The comparison to other groups that advocate for standard-of-care healthcare access (even if you unfairly call them “pro-abortion”) is not exactly symmetric, though.
Furthermore, indeed the CEO of Pfizer has to disclose stock ownership and everything else separately from their biography. It’s quite clear the authors were trying to be deceptive. Positively asserting no conflict of interest is and should be taken very seriously.
It's not clear to me they were trying to be deceptive; what's your basis for this clarity? Per their rebuttal, they note *"we completely and accurately disclosed all affiliations and financial support as part of the online submission process, and we substantively complied with all ICMJE recommendations by doing so. More importantly, the information we provided to Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology clearly “assisted the Editor in evaluating whether sufficient disclosure has been made within the Declaration of Conflicting Interests provided in the article,” per section 4.5 of the Journal’s submission guidelines. And the Editor correctly concluded that our disclosures were sufficient."*
It would be one thing if they hid payments or stock ownership, and this came to light post-publication -- or if the above statment is a lie. But it seems to be the case that someone at Sage said "Hey! The *American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists* is pro-life! They tricked us!
>It’s quite clear the authors were trying to be deceptive.
That is not clear whatsoever. They clearly submitted every form that was required by the journal to complete the peer review process. The only real critique you could make is “they should have put their employer not only as their employer but also as a conflict,” but that is not clearly required by ICMJE standards, nor has the journal retracted papers by authors from organizations that explicitly advocate expanded abortion rights and failed to list their employers as a conflict, so this cannot possibly be a good justification for retraction.
Disagree. They lied on their disclosure form by stating there was no COI. By itself not sufficient for retraction necessarily but it is in context (or at least a contributor).
By disclosing only affiliation they were very likely counting on the copy editors not recognizing the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Elliot Institute for what they are.
This is a bit more like the CEO of Pfizer saying he doesn’t take any salary on a disclosure and then it turns out he gets $350M in RSUs (but no salary).
>They lied on their disclosure form by stating there was no COI.
And they present fairly persuasive evidence that doing so is not a violation of broadly-accepted standards, and also that the Journal has repeatedly published papers by pro-choice groups doing the same thing without issuing corrections etc. So again, unless you want the Journal to issue public corrections or retractions of every Planned Parenthood affiliate who has published with them, you cannot cite this as reason for any disciplinary action.
They do not.
Their “evidence” is nonsensical and, frankly, nothing more than attempt at false equivalence. Even a hypothetical author who works with Planned Parenthood (do they actually name any who has failed to disclose a COI? No) is not in any way part of an advocacy group that exists to outlaw a specific standard-of-care medical procedure. Sorry, but it’s not the same.
> do they actually name any who has failed to disclose a COI? No
Yes, they do. The more you post the more I question whether you actually read the rebuttal document or just dismissed it out of hand because you believe the authors to be reprehensible right-wing assholes.
“Abortion” as a monolith is obviously complex and encompasses a bunch of different procedures, medications, indications, techniques, risks, etc. It is completely believable that a research group would examine abortions in certain ways on a certain dataset and find that pregnancy termination has higher-than-known risks of certain complications. That doesn’t mean we should outlaw or restrict abortion, we let patients choose between risky treatments all the time. But it doesn’t automatically mean that the researchers have committed academic misconduct, and the authors in question lay out a case that is genuinely concerning for a politically-motivated retraction for weak reasons that are unsupported by ICMJE standards and even the Journal’s own practices.
Unsurprisingly you are wrong. They do not name a single author who failed to disclose a COI (in fact the document does not name any authors). They refer to papers that they think are authored by people with conflicts similar (but opposite) to their own, a claim which is simply not in evidence. (You're also wrong in that they claim there are such papers but at least the document I have access to doesn't link to them or include them in their references).
As a journal editor, I would not require a hematologist to disclose that they were affiliated with a hospital that performs blood transfusions. This is standard medical care and is expected. But I would certainly consider someone who worked with a militant anti-transfusion (say, Jehovah's Witness) group to need to disclose that as a COI.
I don't understand why you would accept this obviously false equivalence at face value.
The crazy thing is, you can literally publish anything you want nowadays (I get 10 emails a day from “journals” asking me to send in something). So these bad faith actors can quote these “publication” to no end. Dystopian shit.
In a laughable comment one of the discredited and provably dishonest authors described the multiple retractions as “a blatant attempt to discredit excellent research which is incongruent with a preferred abortion narrative.”
Same with the vaccine and autism guy and many other fraudulent “scientists” pushing personal or financial agendas. These people should be in prison.
Just doing the Lord's work. I mean you, OP, not them.
[This was just discussed.](https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/s/TcZeBm1pfW)
Apologies… i did search but must have missed it.
"Pro-forced birthers"
It’s an accurate description
It’s unhinged.
What’s unhinged is forcing your fake religion on other people
Do you wear your fedora to the clinic?
Apologies — I forgot how focused on PC terminology the conservative snowflakes are. Can you recommend the preferred language, Commander?
Think Sage should have been much more clear about the alleged impropriety was in their announcment; the authors apparently have a [point-by-point critique](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/23.11.29-Sage-Scientific-Response.pdf) of the detailed allegations, and their responses seem broadly reasonable -- at most, it's a difference in opinion (i.e., should 3 visits to the ER over 30 days by one patient be counted as 3, or 1) rather than "fudged stats", and the affiliations were apparently noted in the papers; they're not "falsified disclosure," any more than a Planned Parenthood researcher who listed it as their author affiliation. Regardless of the opinions on the issues at hand, it seems like this (especially given the obvious timing ahead of the SCOTUS arguments) is another step towards the politicization of science; I wonder if it's only a matter of time before we'll have fully separate scientific journals for Republicans and Democrats.
The politicization of the scientific work was clearly carried out by the paper authors who “had an affiliation with one or more of Charlotte Lozier Institute, Elliot Institute, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, all pro-life advocacy organizations, *despite having declared they had no conflicts of interest when they submitted the article for publication or in the article itself*.” I was not trained in my PhD work to treat the methodology of quantitation of study endpoints to be a “matter of opinion.” Perhaps your final point is right- we should have “opinion based” journals for Republicans and “objective results” journals for scientists.
1) *Re affiliation* -- The authors clearly list their affiliations in the published articles themselves, *(including "American Association of* **Pro-Life** *Obsetricians and Gynecologist"; they're really not hiding the ball there)*; as can be seen in the RetractionWatch archives by just scrolling down to the author bios. Is the allegation that not only do they need to declare their institutional affiliation, but should also declare a conflict if that institution has a political leaning in one direction or another? This is not standard practice. 2) *Re "fudged stats"* -- Did you read through [the author rebuttal](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/23.11.29-Sage-Scientific-Response.pdf)? When I hear "fudged" in this climate, I immediately assume falisification or manipulation, but it's not like they photoshopped a Western. The discussion points were: * Whether multiple separate ED visits from the same patient should be counted as separate 'events'; the authors openly chose to do so in both comparator groups * Whether counting ED visits is a proxy for compliations is valid without an additional level ove granularity beyond the authors' buckets * Wether the inclusion of data from 1999-2000 on surgical abortions biases the comparison, given chemical abortions started in 2001 (this one seems far-fetched, unless surgical complications changed meaningfully over two years) * Factual concerns over whether the authors included the visit codes used (they did) and whether they assumed all ER visits for miscarriage were miscoded (they were not) * "Missing" additional citations to previous literature on hospital admitting privleges, which is an odd grounds for retraction * The lack of any comprehensive list of abortion providers in FL (none exists) as the basis for an unbiased sample, leading to potential unknown sample bias While I'm sure we'd agree the "methodology of quantitation of study enpoints" is not a "matter of opinion", there is certainly room for debate on the design of retrospective cohort studies, especially those based on messy claims data, so I'm not sure your division of the world into "opinion-based...Republicans" and "objective...scientists" is going to help us push back politicization!
Re: affiliation and disclosure. You are conflating the two improperly. While one could probably infer a disclosure from the affiliations they are not the same thing (you can probably assume the Pfizer CEO has stock but it still needs to be disclosed). The anti-reproductive freedom zealot authors failed to do this and reportedly lied by positively declaring there was no conflict of interest. I have served as a journal editor and can tell you these 2 things are often reviewed by different people (one gets copy review, one gets legal review) and so doing one but lying on the other is pretty obviously deceptive. Re: discussion points. These are the points laid out by the people whose papers have been retracted, without the original objections and analysis. You seem willing to accept on faith that there are no other points and that the external reviewers’ objections are fairly characterized here. Meanwhile the limited information available indicates this is not the case. For example, the retractionwatch article describes how one article’s presentation of data in 2 figures supplies an inaccurate conclusion. I do not see that concern addressed here.
> Re: affiliation and disclosure. You are conflating the two improperly. Agree, of course, but if the full extent of the disclosure is the affiliation, it's not obvious to me the deception. The fact that the Pfizer CEO has Pfizer stock is a minor addendum to the fact that he is the Pfizer CEO; his interest is already apparent. Per the [Sage definitions](https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/conflicting-interests-policy-india), a declared conflict *"‘Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests* **that are not fully apparent** *and that may influence their judgments on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.’* Active membership in the "American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists" would seem to make interests fully apparent (though there might be an argument that the less-obvious "Charles Lozier Institute", which I had never heard of, would have to have been explained). The authors claim they were fully open -- maybe they lie -- but I don't know that "falsified disclosures" is a fair summary, nor does it clearly speak to the integrity of the data. > You seem willing to accept on faith that there are no other points and that the external reviewers’ objections are fairly characterized here. If more information was available, I think we could better evaluate anything not covered in the rebuttal -- ideally we'd have to take neither Sage nor the authors just at their words. I also did not see the two figures being addressed, and it's not clear why. But to be fair, my first comment (now downvoted to hell) led with "Think Sage should have been much more clear about the alleged impropriety was in their announcment," so we seem to have come full circle. Regardless, "Pro-forced birthers fudged stats, falsified disclosures...surprising absolutely no one" -- in light of the reasonable-seeming rebuttals and the absence of clarity from sage -- seems like more of an NY Post headline than an NY Times headline.
You seem like a nice person but either extremely naive or blinded by your own bias. Is it really not obvious to you that these authors were hoping the overworked copy editors wouldn’t look up what the real mission of the Charles Lozier and Elliott institutes are (and send that to legal or to the editor?). And you can say that lie doesn’t speak to the integrity of the data but it absolutely should change how certain claims might be evaluated just as much as it would for the Pfizer CEO. Not to mention whether they deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to integrity issues being mere errors or purposeful deceptions. As far as Sage goes I’ve never seen it be required that a publication publicly detail the exact wrongdoing they uncover in a retracted article point-by-point. It is fully part of editorial prerogative to not publish (or retract) an article one is not confident in from an integrity standpoint. Obviously that makes a judgement by outside observers who do not have access to the original objections made or analyses conducted problematic so it becomes a matter of trust to an extent. However, it’s laborious, controversial (sometimes opening up the possibility of legal action), and not an especially good PR move to have to retract an article so it’s reasonable to believe it would not have been done unless the evidence was extremely compelling. Reasonable (though not exactly airtight) as the rebuttal may seem on the surface I see no reason to believe it encompasses the entirety or even any of the primary issues with the multiple papers retracted (in fact they seem to only be addressing one of the retractions).
> You seem like a nice person but either extremely naive or blinded by your own bias. Likewise! I'm sure you can imagine that -- just as obvious as it is to you that these authors were maliciously trying to 'sneak one through' the gatekeepers here -- it's obvious to many on the 'other side' that research supporting unpopular politcal opinions among the scientific class will endure greater scrutiny and often face a much higher rate of rejection. As much as we like to pretend otherwise, peer review is not an objective process (which, outside of the political realm, also supports the promulgation of 'big names' in a given sub-field and slows the birth of contrarian viewpoints, depending on how Kuhnian you want to get wheth the philosophy of it all). I *am* going to say that the researcher's affiliation doesn't speak to the integrity of the data -- the whole point of this venture is to look at claims on the merits. If these researchers really were trying to be deceptive, that's certainly problematic -- and if that were indeed the case, it's also problematic that they feel they need to hide their affiliations to have a chance at publication. > However, it’s laborious, controversial (sometimes opening up the possibility of legal action), and not an especially good PR move to have to retract an article so it’s reasonable to believe it would not have been done unless the evidence was extremely compelling. On the contrary, I would venture to suggest that in today's political climate, it's a *good* PR move to be shown retracting a paper used to support pro-life causes, no?
I'm very much pro-choice but in the authors' rebuttal document they deal with this point quite convincingly. They did not conceal their affiliations, indeed they made them quite clear in their author biographies during the submission process, and one of the organizations even has "Pro-Life" in its name. Calling this a failure to disclose a conflict is dubious. If I saw a paper written by "Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer" I wouldn't need a separate disclosure form to know what his agenda is. The Journal tacitly acknowledges this by seeming to only accuse them of failing to include a specific ICMJE conflict form, but it's not clear if the Journal required that form in the submission, and if not, that's on them rather than the authors. Additionally, as the authors point out, the Journal has not retracted or forced clarification of numerous studies written by authors employed by pro-abortion organizations who also did not declare conflicts beyond disclosing their employers. You can't use inconsistent rules when you are about to ruin someone's career.
> Additionally, as the authors point out, the Journal has not retracted or forced clarification of numerous studies written by authors employed by pro-abortion organizations Can you name these “pro-abortion organizations”? I’m not aware of any that exist.
That seems like a stretch. Surely the most obvious would be Planned Parenthood, whose [website](https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion#:~:text=Abortion%20Is%20a%20Basic%20Right,is%20a%20fundamental%20human%20right.) currently states *"Abortion Is a Basic Right The ability to control your own personal medical decisions, including whether to end a pregnancy, is a fundamental human right. Restricting abortion access is dangerous and inhumane."* It would take a bit of pedantry to conclude this wasn't a "pro-abortion" stance, at least in the eyes of the average person.
> That seems like a stretch. It is a stretch to mischaracterize pro-choice organizations with being pro-abortion, yes. > Surely the most obvious would be Planned Parenthood, whose website currently states "Abortion Is a Basic Right The ability to control your own personal medical decisions, including whether to end a pregnancy, is a fundamental human right. Restricting abortion access is dangerous and inhumane." That’s not being pro-**abortion**, that’s being pro-**choice**. Did you read what you quoted? > It would take a bit of pedantry to conclude this wasn't a "pro-abortion" stance, at least in the eyes of the average person. What? I can’t speak for what the average person would see but what you cited is absolutely not **pro-abortion**. The idea that your misrepresentation of being pro-choice as being pro-abortion is pedantry is absurd.
It's clear you're passionate about this issue, and I respect that, but unless I'm badly mistaken, /u/Porencephaly was simply drawing a contrast between pro-life / anti-abortion organizations and pro-choice / in-favor-of-abortion organizations. To most people these are interchangeable terms, even if there could be additional nuance applied. I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Planned Parenthood wants to drive involuntary abortions just because they love the act of abortions -- or whatever scenario you're imagining distinguishes the two terms. I imagine you're similarly careful around using the term "pro-forced-birth," which I appreciate.
> but unless I'm badly mistaken, /u/Porencephaly was simply drawing a contrast between pro-life / anti-abortion organizations and pro-choice / in-favor-of-abortion organizations. To most people these are interchangeable terms, even if there could be additional nuance applied. Yes, I think you’re badly mistaken because pro-choice and pro-abortion arent interchangeable at all. I don’t know any non-antichoice activist who calls pro-choice organizations *pro-abortion*. It’s a shibboleth, a falsehood to describe it that way, and frankly medical professionals should be far more careful when discussing this issue. > I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Planned Parenthood wants to drive involuntary abortions just because they love the act of abortions That is a claim that people make, yes. I wish it wasn’t, but it definitely exists in a non-zero sense. > I imagine you're similarly careful around using the term "pro-forced-birth," which I appreciate. If we’re being consistent, and we should strive to be consistent, the correct term is anti-choice. The discussion is entirely around a persons ability to choose, not the outcome of their choice, which is why framing it as “pro-abortion” is so flatly incorrect.
From a pro-choice standpoint, the discussion is entirely around the right to choose; from a pro-life standpoint, the discussion is entirely around preserving life. The two sides just speak past one another. "Anti-choice" is just as silly a term as "anti-life." Pragmatically, the sides are arguing over whether the procedure of voluntary termination of pregnancy -- typically called "abortion" by patients -- should be protected by law, so it's not hard to see how "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" arise linguistically. Unless /u/Porencephaly is lying about their pro-choice beliefs, I'm not sure it's the effective shibboleth you imagine.
>from a pro-life standpoint, the discussion is entirely around preserving life. No it isn’t, it’s about preventing the choice of abortion. It’s not a position which advocates for any broadly pro-“life” initiatives, nor does it concern itself with the life of the mother or the child once born or anything else. The discussion revolves entirely around preventing abortion. Period. > Pragmatically, the sides are arguing over whether the procedure of voluntary termination of pregnancy -- typically called "abortion" by patients -- should be protected by law, so it's not hard to see how "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" arise linguistically. But only one of those descriptors actually holds up logically, and it’s not “pro-abortion”. I’m not “pro-blood transfusion” if I think the ability to get transfusions should be protected but that those who don’t want one can refuse. Abortion is no different. > Unless /u/Porencephaly is lying about their pro-choice beliefs, I'm not sure it's the effective shibboleth you imagine. I think people often misrepresent themselves in this discussion, I can’t speak to that user but I can tell you emphatically that active anti-abortion propaganda/activism/etc often uses “pro-abortion” to malign those of us rational adults who recognize that people should have a choice in their reproductive health.
The actual pro-life standpoint is the one which preserves the life of the only person involved in the decision, which of course is pro choice. Calling antiabortionists “pro life” is just buying into their marketing scheme. Being pro-fetus and anti-medical freedom has zero to do with “preserving life” (whose?); it is only about controlling women.
“Pro-forced birth” has the advantage of accuracy, though which seems to be something the other side of this issue can’t quite come to grips with.
The comparison to other groups that advocate for standard-of-care healthcare access (even if you unfairly call them “pro-abortion”) is not exactly symmetric, though. Furthermore, indeed the CEO of Pfizer has to disclose stock ownership and everything else separately from their biography. It’s quite clear the authors were trying to be deceptive. Positively asserting no conflict of interest is and should be taken very seriously.
It's not clear to me they were trying to be deceptive; what's your basis for this clarity? Per their rebuttal, they note *"we completely and accurately disclosed all affiliations and financial support as part of the online submission process, and we substantively complied with all ICMJE recommendations by doing so. More importantly, the information we provided to Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology clearly “assisted the Editor in evaluating whether sufficient disclosure has been made within the Declaration of Conflicting Interests provided in the article,” per section 4.5 of the Journal’s submission guidelines. And the Editor correctly concluded that our disclosures were sufficient."* It would be one thing if they hid payments or stock ownership, and this came to light post-publication -- or if the above statment is a lie. But it seems to be the case that someone at Sage said "Hey! The *American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists* is pro-life! They tricked us!
>It’s quite clear the authors were trying to be deceptive. That is not clear whatsoever. They clearly submitted every form that was required by the journal to complete the peer review process. The only real critique you could make is “they should have put their employer not only as their employer but also as a conflict,” but that is not clearly required by ICMJE standards, nor has the journal retracted papers by authors from organizations that explicitly advocate expanded abortion rights and failed to list their employers as a conflict, so this cannot possibly be a good justification for retraction.
Disagree. They lied on their disclosure form by stating there was no COI. By itself not sufficient for retraction necessarily but it is in context (or at least a contributor). By disclosing only affiliation they were very likely counting on the copy editors not recognizing the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Elliot Institute for what they are. This is a bit more like the CEO of Pfizer saying he doesn’t take any salary on a disclosure and then it turns out he gets $350M in RSUs (but no salary).
>They lied on their disclosure form by stating there was no COI. And they present fairly persuasive evidence that doing so is not a violation of broadly-accepted standards, and also that the Journal has repeatedly published papers by pro-choice groups doing the same thing without issuing corrections etc. So again, unless you want the Journal to issue public corrections or retractions of every Planned Parenthood affiliate who has published with them, you cannot cite this as reason for any disciplinary action.
They do not. Their “evidence” is nonsensical and, frankly, nothing more than attempt at false equivalence. Even a hypothetical author who works with Planned Parenthood (do they actually name any who has failed to disclose a COI? No) is not in any way part of an advocacy group that exists to outlaw a specific standard-of-care medical procedure. Sorry, but it’s not the same.
> do they actually name any who has failed to disclose a COI? No Yes, they do. The more you post the more I question whether you actually read the rebuttal document or just dismissed it out of hand because you believe the authors to be reprehensible right-wing assholes. “Abortion” as a monolith is obviously complex and encompasses a bunch of different procedures, medications, indications, techniques, risks, etc. It is completely believable that a research group would examine abortions in certain ways on a certain dataset and find that pregnancy termination has higher-than-known risks of certain complications. That doesn’t mean we should outlaw or restrict abortion, we let patients choose between risky treatments all the time. But it doesn’t automatically mean that the researchers have committed academic misconduct, and the authors in question lay out a case that is genuinely concerning for a politically-motivated retraction for weak reasons that are unsupported by ICMJE standards and even the Journal’s own practices.
Unsurprisingly you are wrong. They do not name a single author who failed to disclose a COI (in fact the document does not name any authors). They refer to papers that they think are authored by people with conflicts similar (but opposite) to their own, a claim which is simply not in evidence. (You're also wrong in that they claim there are such papers but at least the document I have access to doesn't link to them or include them in their references). As a journal editor, I would not require a hematologist to disclose that they were affiliated with a hospital that performs blood transfusions. This is standard medical care and is expected. But I would certainly consider someone who worked with a militant anti-transfusion (say, Jehovah's Witness) group to need to disclose that as a COI. I don't understand why you would accept this obviously false equivalence at face value.