Founder of Health Rising and Phoenix Rising
"As part of our follow up we are seeking further expert advice on the analyses reported in the article" Plos One
In a win for advocates pressing for a retraction of several studies associated with the PACE trial, Retraction Watch recently reported that one of them, PLOS One has begun its own internal investigation.
They stated that the editors of PLOS One have flagged the article with an "editor's note" . The note states that they are aware of the controversy, that they expect the authors of the study make their data available, and that they have begun their own investigation into it.
This is the first official action by a publication that I know of to address the controversy swirling around the study. If the PLOS ONE article falls then it's hard to imagine that Lancet - one of the most esteemed medical journals in the world - would not be obliged to examine the original study.
Given the huge cost of that study, and the numerous publications that have come and are still coming out of the it, a retraction of the original Lancet study would have enormous implications for the researchers involved, and perhaps even for the CBT/GET field.
Check out a letter from Ron Davis and others requesting the raw data from the PACE trial here.Editor's Note From PlOS One
Several readers have raised concerns regarding the analyses reported in this article. We are also aware that there have been requests for the data from this study.
The article was published in 2012; the PLOS data policy that applies to the article is that for submissions prior to March 3, 2014, which is outlined here: http://journals.plos.org/…. The policy expects authors ‘to make freely available any materials and information described in their publication that may be reasonably requested by others for the purpose of academic, non-commercial research’. The policy also notes that access to the data should not compromise confidentiality in the context of human-subject research.
PLOS ONE takes seriously concerns raised about publications in the journal as well as concerns about compliance with the journal’s editorial policies. PLOS staff are following up on the different concerns raised about this article as per our internal processes. As part of our follow up we are seeking further expert advice on the analyses reported in the article, and we will evaluate how the request for the data from this study relates to the policy that applies to the publication. These evaluations will inform our next steps as we look to address the concerns that have been noted.