Update, June 30-- Jann Ingmire, the director of media relations for JAMA and the Archives Journals, sent the following clarification late this afternoon: “The authors submitted the additional data in a letter just prior to publication. That letter was submitted by the authors in response to a request for changes from the NIH program director (not the journal).” This information is helpful, but it still does not shed any light on the substance of the problems with the Archives paper or the issue concerning the last-minute timing of events, and it raises a new question about the NIH’s involvement with this study.
Over on his blogs Retraction Watch and Embargo Watch, Ivan Oransky has published statements about the mystery of the disappearing paper from the editor of the journal that pulled the paper and the first author of the paper. Unfortunately, the statements don’t really shed a whole lot of light on the unprecedented event, in which the publication of a paper was halted only 12 minutes before its scheduled debut.
Rita Redberg, the editor of Archives of Internal Medicine told Oransky that she did not know when (if ever) a revised version of the paper would be published: “we are awaiting a revised version that contains additional data which must be reviewed and analyzed,” she said.
In response to Oransky’s question about peer review of the study, she said:
The study was peer reviewed, as are all Archives articles, and in general peer review works well as long as all data are provided as required by Instructions to Authors. We thought we had all the data when the manuscript underwent peer review, but it turned out there was additional data to be considered.
Here is the comment Oransky received from the first author of the paper, Robert Schneider:
Click to continue reading…