Submited on: 20 Sep 2010 07:59:00 PM GMT
Published on: 20 Sep 2010 09:21:26 PM GMT
 
Review of Professor Ehrlich's
Posted by Dr. Eugenie Mielczarek on 04 Jan 2011 10:47:13 AM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? No
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Professor Ehrlich has written a spoof of statistical studies which report findings  with no basis in scientific or medical fact but which claim to verify cultural mythologies.  He precisely mimics  their format : seriousness of purpose, claims of large samples,  blinded conditions, statistical packaging and erudite references.  Important tables add to an impression of precise thinking.  My own background includes associate editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative  Medicine,  contributor to the blog sciencebasedmedicine.org and articles, for the  American Physical Society ‘s Forum on Physics and Society . For the last two years I’ve concentrated on writing science policy which exposes the statistical claims of distance  healing (Reiki, Therapeutic Touch), acupuncture, healing magnets etc.  The most famous of these claims was the Columbia prayer study which took many years of exposure to force the journal and the university to retract the findings.  What is most frightening is the funding of these studies by  NIH’s National Center of  Complementary and Alternative Medicine, NCCAM.  If Professor Ehrlich had applied to NCCAM  for a grant for this study I’m confident he would have been funded and his findings published on the NCCAM website. These appalling studies which purport to verify religious and cultural mythology satisfy a current need to find and verify magic.  Professor Ehrlich’s expose is a very important addition to the literature which is  badly needed to put an end to the pandering of medical and sociological journals to these statistical dressed up studies of mythological phenomena, with no basis in scientific fact. It should be prominently published in bold format . More than a spoof it’s an important wake up call to the nonsense which is uncritically added to references, citations and grant applications.

     

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    sciencebasedmedicine.org May 27, 2010
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Associate Editor of the Journnal of the Asicntific Reviews of Alternative Medicine, author of articles exposing the cultural and religious legends  of distance healing, acupuncture and healing magnets.

  • How to cite:  Mielczarek E .Review of Professor Ehrlich's [Review of the article 'Optimizing the Efficacy of Intercessory Prayer: Results from a Quadruply-Blind Study ' by Ehrlich R].WebmedCentral 2011;2(1):WMCRW00330
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Untitled
Posted by Dr. Robert Park on 23 Nov 2010 12:38:06 PM GMT

  • Other Comments:

    I frankly don't know what to do with this article.  Perhaps a better description would be "this spoof." Maybe I'm a little slow, but I didn't have a clue as to what was going on until the author removed his mask. I was a bit annoyed by that time.

    The question of course is whether it's worthy of publication.  In the normal publication mode, this is the point at which a strong editor is needed. I applaud the author in his desire to expose studies of the efficacy of prayer as scientifically meaningless, but this is a science journal. We need go no further than the first law of science, stated by Thales in 585 BC: Every observable effect has a physical cause.  We should drill this into our children even as they are learning to speak.  If people have not learned the first law of science by the time it they begin reading the medical literature, they are probably beyond our help.

    Perhaps instead of offering this spoof, the author should lobby journal editors to state a clear policy that articles dealing with superstitious belief will not be accepted.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Park R .Untitled[Review of the article 'Optimizing the Efficacy of Intercessory Prayer: Results from a Quadruply-Blind Study ' by Ehrlich R].WebmedCentral 2011;1(11):WMCRW00167
Report abuse