Talk:The Lancet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Lancet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Academic Journals B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Is The Lancet peer-reviewed? -Jess

It certainly is. Most medical journals nowadays are peer-reviewed. Is there anything specific you'd like to know about this? JFW | T@lk 21:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

Someone inserted that a study on NSAIDs in oral cancer was a hoax. The only corrobation I have is this in the Grauniad, but nothing from the journal itself. We should not be listing every incident where research data is falsified. Only if the peer-review process comes under pressure - and only if there is evidence for this - should we be thinking about including this factoid. JFW | T@lk 14:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is, like the recent South Korean case, a major scandal, and has been dominating the news in Norway for several days now as well been widely reported in other countries. According to Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, the article will have to be retracted, which has only happened one time before when he was an editor. The Lancet's "fast track" review process has been criticized ever since it was introduced in 1997. Wolfram 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we wait until the Lancet has actually retracted? Also, do you have solid evidence of the criticism for the "fast track" process? I've always found this a bit dubious. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly read about the case in Norwegian newspapers, like this one, which states that the article was published after a "fast track review" process, and that this practice has been criticized by for example the British Medical Journal (Dec. 2004). Also, today Lancet editor Horton told leading Norwegian daily Aftenposten that this is the biggest research fraud the world has ever seen. [1] English. I don't see why we shouldn't write about the case now. Many people will be looking for information and expecting to find something about it. Wolfram 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have established the verifiability and the notability, would you mind making the relevant amendments to the article? JFW | T@lk 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Mortality Studies

I have not seen the reports about death toll in Iraq being outspoken, so why do you guys write that the it has been outspoken ?

"The second survey estimated that the death toll in Iraq was somewhere between 426,000 and 793,000 people - with 601,000 being the agreed upon mid-way estimate." Is not right. From the paper "601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence," but the number of deaths is 654 965 (392 979–942 636) (Bracketed terms are the 95% CI.)
Also the phrase "being the agreed upon mid-way estimate" is a shocking choice of words. It sounds like the number is the result of some consensus of interested parties. 654 965 is the estimated value.
Thirdly, I wonder if it's premature to mention the Iraq Mortality Studies as controversial at all yet?--RobinGrant 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horton's expression of concern

Horton has now published his expression of concern[2]. JFW | T@lk 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question

As there is a fixed policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy saying that the Beatles has to be written with a lowercase 't', I wonder what your thoughts are about using that policy for this page, and if you would agree or disagree. I thank you. andreasegde 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening?

This case undermines importance of power abuse in a power pyramid owned by publishers over ideas expressed by top level employees in medical journals such as The Lancet.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/05/senior_lancet_editor_sacked_in.html

--Nevit (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics section

I'm curious why a medical journal discussing the medical fact that homeopathy is bogus would be considered political. It's like saying a geology journal discussing the age of the Earth being billions of years is political. Given the other subjects listed in that section are where the journal was used to express an editorial opinion rather than fact, I believe that particular entry to be misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolrahnaes (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lancet Infectious Disease Article Criticism

The text was removed as it was an allegation and there was no reference quoted to backup the claims of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutonline (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The focus of this encyclopedia article is a peer-reviewed medical journal. As such, at best 1-2 lines on the current controversy (NPOV) are warranted. Not 5 paragraphs serving to forward a particular POV. Thanks Antorjal (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the whole controversial topic paragraph. Why keep it ? It was created for purpose. --Thandermax (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned one or two NPOV paragraphs are warranted not a soapbox for biased assertions. Just because a section exists doesn't mean it should read like a newspaper, right? Antorjal (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]