In Reply: A Missed Opportunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".