This article was nominated for deletion on September 25 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The Waxman-Platts bill, HR 985, currently pending in the US House, would make a sham peer review actionable as an unlawful adverse action against federal civil service employees. Also called The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007, the bill has passed a House committee vote 28-0 on 2007-02-14. r3 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Peer Review and medical staff issues are State issues, and this is a Federal bill.
H.R. 985 only gives protection to Federal workers who are "whistleblowers," not to any whistleblower.
Even if passed, it will have no effect in medical staff peer review issues, whether related to whistleblower issues or not. Physadvoc 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Medical peer review is a very un-neutral topic in healthcare. The description of all medical peer review as being sham peer review is obviously not neutral.
However, the description of components of sham peer review have not yet been disputed.
This article describes sham peer review, not medical peer review.
Any arguments about the neutrality of the topic should be undertaken in this discussion forum. Physadvoc 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be in violation of WP:SYN and promotes the viewpoints of fringe groups such as Semmelweis and AAPS. Sources that do not address "sham peer review" are used to support blatantly POV statements about peer review. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 00:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There are two main law firms, Davis, Wright and Tremaine and Horty, Springer, and Mattern, that have aggressively written articles promoting abuse of peer review and seminars for hospital administrators to take advantage of the protections provided by the HCQIA of 1986. This article, as extensively and repeatedly edited by Keepcalmandcarryon mirror these seminars almost exactly. The aggressive misinformation and misquoting of references by Keepcalmandcarryon makes this page unbalanced and is more likely an effort by legal advocates to bias the topic than a balanced overview. I note that Keepcalmandcarryon even removes the POV objections. Moreleave999 ( talk) 23:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made some major edits to the article. Much of it was unsourced POV, a breathtaking combination of OR and SYN, or simply based on POV-pushing primary and/or self-published sources. There are still many problems, not least the lack of reliable sources for many claims. The further reading section also needs some serious pruning, as well as introduction of more neutral sources. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 20:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Then why did you remove all the credible resources, such as the USF Law Review? In fact, I note that you removed many credible and peer reviewed references. Moreleave999 ( talk) 23:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I hastily stated in a recent edit summary that "Chalifoux is hardly a reliable source". This isn't quite right, since the Medscape Gen Med source is reliable. We do need to keep in mind that Chalifoux has a strong POV on this issue based on negative personal history with peer review. In any case there is no need to mention Chalifoux in the lead of the article. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see, and your intent is to silence and edit the cases of sham peer review that do exist? What, do you work for Horty Springer or Davis, Wright, and Tremaine?
Edits adding the personal views of two individuals were removed. Let's keep in mind that this is a general encyclopaedia, and that we need to use reliable sources. The American Medical Association is a reliable source, as are major newspaper articles. The journals of fringe organisations and the websites of individuals are unreliable and insufficiently notable to merit inclusion. If the two individuals in question have achieved notability as recognised figures connected with this topic, for example as evidenced by interviews in major media outlets or extensive publication on the topic in the respected medical literature, then we could certainly mention their views. JPandS doesn't provide this sort of notability, though, and without more reliable sources, adding these opinions is more like advocacy than encyclopaedia writing. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not like Keepcalm is the first to call it an unreliable publication - read Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons. Rather than getting bogged down in JPandS, look at other sources - for example you could look at Bond 2005 and Chalifoux 2005. II | ( t - c) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sham peer review. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Sham peer review. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on September 25 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The Waxman-Platts bill, HR 985, currently pending in the US House, would make a sham peer review actionable as an unlawful adverse action against federal civil service employees. Also called The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007, the bill has passed a House committee vote 28-0 on 2007-02-14. r3 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Peer Review and medical staff issues are State issues, and this is a Federal bill.
H.R. 985 only gives protection to Federal workers who are "whistleblowers," not to any whistleblower.
Even if passed, it will have no effect in medical staff peer review issues, whether related to whistleblower issues or not. Physadvoc 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Medical peer review is a very un-neutral topic in healthcare. The description of all medical peer review as being sham peer review is obviously not neutral.
However, the description of components of sham peer review have not yet been disputed.
This article describes sham peer review, not medical peer review.
Any arguments about the neutrality of the topic should be undertaken in this discussion forum. Physadvoc 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be in violation of WP:SYN and promotes the viewpoints of fringe groups such as Semmelweis and AAPS. Sources that do not address "sham peer review" are used to support blatantly POV statements about peer review. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 00:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There are two main law firms, Davis, Wright and Tremaine and Horty, Springer, and Mattern, that have aggressively written articles promoting abuse of peer review and seminars for hospital administrators to take advantage of the protections provided by the HCQIA of 1986. This article, as extensively and repeatedly edited by Keepcalmandcarryon mirror these seminars almost exactly. The aggressive misinformation and misquoting of references by Keepcalmandcarryon makes this page unbalanced and is more likely an effort by legal advocates to bias the topic than a balanced overview. I note that Keepcalmandcarryon even removes the POV objections. Moreleave999 ( talk) 23:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made some major edits to the article. Much of it was unsourced POV, a breathtaking combination of OR and SYN, or simply based on POV-pushing primary and/or self-published sources. There are still many problems, not least the lack of reliable sources for many claims. The further reading section also needs some serious pruning, as well as introduction of more neutral sources. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 20:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Then why did you remove all the credible resources, such as the USF Law Review? In fact, I note that you removed many credible and peer reviewed references. Moreleave999 ( talk) 23:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I hastily stated in a recent edit summary that "Chalifoux is hardly a reliable source". This isn't quite right, since the Medscape Gen Med source is reliable. We do need to keep in mind that Chalifoux has a strong POV on this issue based on negative personal history with peer review. In any case there is no need to mention Chalifoux in the lead of the article. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see, and your intent is to silence and edit the cases of sham peer review that do exist? What, do you work for Horty Springer or Davis, Wright, and Tremaine?
Edits adding the personal views of two individuals were removed. Let's keep in mind that this is a general encyclopaedia, and that we need to use reliable sources. The American Medical Association is a reliable source, as are major newspaper articles. The journals of fringe organisations and the websites of individuals are unreliable and insufficiently notable to merit inclusion. If the two individuals in question have achieved notability as recognised figures connected with this topic, for example as evidenced by interviews in major media outlets or extensive publication on the topic in the respected medical literature, then we could certainly mention their views. JPandS doesn't provide this sort of notability, though, and without more reliable sources, adding these opinions is more like advocacy than encyclopaedia writing. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not like Keepcalm is the first to call it an unreliable publication - read Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons. Rather than getting bogged down in JPandS, look at other sources - for example you could look at Bond 2005 and Chalifoux 2005. II | ( t - c) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sham peer review. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Sham peer review. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)