In Reply: A Missed Opportunity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We agree completely that it is indeed “a missed opportunity” that important scientific dialogue regarding the Summit article1Côté P Hartvigsen J Axén I et al.The Global Summit on the efficacy and effectiveness off spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.Chiropr Man Therap. 2021; 29: 8Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar is occurring outside the journal in which it was submitted. We would like to clarify that we chose to submit our article2Goertz CM Hurwitz EL Murphy BA Coulter ID. Extrapolating beyond the evidence in a systematic review of spinal manipulation for non-musculoskeletal disorders: a fall from the summit.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2021; 44: 271-279Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar to the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) only after multiple attempts to work with Summit authors and the editors of Chiropractic and Manual Therapies (CMT) had failed. Here is what happened. After the original draft of the Summit article was completed, it was distributed to all coauthors. Each author on our article2Goertz CM Hurwitz EL Murphy BA Coulter ID. Extrapolating beyond the evidence in a systematic review of spinal manipulation for non-musculoskeletal disorders: a fall from the summit.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2021; 44: 271-279Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar independently contacted members of the Summit Steering Group expressing concerns regarding the proposed publication. This was followed by a joint email to Summit authors. We then requested the opportunity to draft a minority report to be included within the Summit publication. However, our request was denied. When this approach failed, we contacted the editor-in-chief of CMT and requested permission to submit a commentary to accompany the Summit article. Such an accompanying commentary is not uncommon in high-impact scientific journals, especially when a topic may invite controversy. In fact, journal editors often request such commentary to facilitate scientific dialogue and academic debate. The process CMT used to consider our request was not provided to us. All current CMT senior editors are either authors of the Summit article or were close working colleagues with a member of the Summit Steering Group. Our request was denied with no rationale provided. The Summit Steering Group members and CMT editors advised us to submit a letter to the editor. However, we explained that the letter to the editor format was too restrictive to allow us to fully explain our substantive concerns. After our efforts to publish our article in CMT, to now find ourselves being criticized for not publishing in CMT seems disingenuous. Regarding the statement that “authors appear to question the scientific merit of the Summit,” nowhere in our article do we suggest this. As participants at the Summit event, we all felt that the work involved in conducting the systematic review followed best practices. The conclusions and the policy implications were what we objected to. We were not given the opportunity to engage in academic debate during the Summit process. The conclusion and policy implications were not presented, discussed, or voted on at the Summit event. We wish that there had been an opportunity to present our concerns at the meeting for consideration and discussion with all of the Summit participants. Instead, we were forced to interact afterward one-on-one with members of the Summit Steering Group. Our concerns outlined in our article were focused entirely on the merits of the Summit conclusions and resultant policy implications. Such criticism is the lifeline of science. Should that not also be the case in chiropractic? Indeed, it was unfortunate that we were not given the opportunity and had to find another means to engage in scientific dialogue.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,215 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,060 | 0,076 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,031 | 0,021 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».