As I explained in a recent post, BMJ published a "Best Practice" guide last July that pretty much repudiated the psychosocial model ME/CFS that has been dominant in the U.K. Although I did not mention it here, one of the most intriguing aspects of the guide was that Dr. Peter White, an emeritus professor of psychological medicine Queen Mary University London, was one of the peer reviewers. White was one of the principal investigators in the PACE trial -- which has been discredited in the U.S. but still respected in the U.K. -- and a leading proponent of "reversing" ME/CFS through psychotherapy and graded exercise. The BMJ Best Practice guide, however, rejected that approach, so it was quite a surprise to see White's name among the peer reviewers. Of course, approving a monograph for publication does not necessarily imply agreement with its conclusions, and it is possible that White's review had been negative, but, as David Tuller and I said on the Virology Blog, White still deserved credit for reviewing a guide so contrary to his own life's work.
Now the mystery: At some point between the initial publication in July and last week, White's name was removed from the list of peer reviewers on the on-line version of the Best Practice guide. No correction, no explanation, no update, no retraction. His name is just gone.
Well, White either peer reviewed the monograph or he didn't. If he did, then his name should remain on the list, even if he is unhappy with the ultimate publication. If he didn't, and the original listing was in error, then there should be a correction rather than an erasure. If White believes that his inclusion somehow validates the guide -- with which he no doubt disagrees -- then perhaps a "dissent" could be noted. But simply removing his name seems Orwellian.
Readers of this blog probably have little interest in the names behind the ME/CFS developments, but there is an underlying issue here of standards in academic publishing. While it may be fine to edit or correct on-line publications, it strikes me as deeply wrong to make such a major revision -- really, changing the history of the publication -- without any acknowledgement whatsoever.
David Tuller is pursuing the question with BMJ Publishing and other sources, and I will post updates as his investigation progresses.
Comments