 It's JAMA, not Emily
No disrespect to Emily. Bravo to her for trying an ambitious experiment. That's great. It's JAMA that I'm dissing for publishing her study. Again, it looks to my eyes, as someone whose work has to pass editorial muster to make it into a newspaper or magazine, that the peer review and editorial board was so eager to publish something negative about therapeutic touch that they accepted a piece that would be rejected 1,000 times out of 1,000 if it were on some other topic. When you bend the principle of professional peer-reviewed research to the breaking point in order to pursue a personal agenda (as this case appears to me), then you call your credibility very much into question.
Emily, as far as I'm concerned, should keep on keeping on. |