openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
Thu Mar 12 08:11:34 EDT 2015


Hi Dipak,

we already decided to do just this in an offline group of potential 
paper contributors. I have already asked Jan if a new paper is of 
interest to IJMI, and he says he is open to the idea.

Although I agree that letters of complaint are not in general of much 
interest, I do have to say that in this case, the paper appears to 
almost willfully avoid reference to significant available evidence (at 
the time) that is contrary to many of its assertions, while failing to 
provide much evidence or analytical argument behind other assertions it 
makes. These comments pertain not only to archetypes by the way, but to 
misunderstandings of 13606, the HL7 RIM, and basic errors to do with 
what ADL/AOM actually is (since it's an object of critique in the paper, 
it needs to be at least slightly understood by the authors). Anyway, I 
don't have time to go further on this.

I hope our main interest is that papers in respected journals are 
properly evidence based, make a reasonable attempt to understand the 
objects of critique (or say why they are not amenable to critique) and 
to provide defensible analytical arguments where appropriate. If that 
doesn't happen, journals that should be scientific will instead end up 
in the post-modernist category, of the kind that Alan Sokol so 
successfully skewered a decade ago 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair>. (Readers can find a new 
chapter in post-modernist academic nonsense right here 
<http://crookedtimber.org/2015/03/09/carte-blanche/>; perhaps a new 
Sokol affair is on the way).

I'm a reviewer for a few journals, and my rejections to date on these 
kind of grounds have been agreed by the editors. So I don't think I'm 
completely alone on this...

- thomas

On 12/03/2015 11:25, Kalra, Dipak wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am writing with a suggestion, but also hoping that a discussion of 
> different academic perspectives on a given topic can be undertaken in 
> a professional and mutually respecting way.
>
> To me there seems to be little point, and probably no significant 
> value to the field, in writing a letter of complaint or concern about 
> a manuscript that was published a few years ago.
>
> Since some of the original authors of the paper, including Bernd and 
> William, are members of this openEHR discussion list and are noting 
> the comments now being raised, I wonder if it would be of greater 
> scientific value if a fresh debate manuscript could now be written, in 
> which two or three authors representing each perspective write part of 
> the article, and a neutral party is asked to write a short 
> introduction and summing up, thereby helping the community to be 
> better aware of multiple schools of thought and to further debate, via 
> correspondence, the issues raised.
>
> I would also be interested in hearing from Jan if the journal would be 
> interested in receiving such a manuscript, as a follow-up to one of 
> its publications a few years ago.
>
> With best wishes,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150312/e7ccbb5c/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list