Referees stifling the News about the Long Term impact of Alemtuzumab

You said

“A long time ago we were told on this blog – straight from the horse’s mouth of Revd Coles – that we’d be provided with some info on the earliest Alemtuzumab treated RRMS cohort…………For many of those who received it ‘off label’ outside the official trials, we’re in the 15-20 year mark post-treatment. How these people are doing is off huge interest to the MS community – medical and patients……….Prof G – will you revert to Revd Coles, reminding him what he said on this blog, and ask for a response? ………However, I do think we’re entitled to as much info as is out there. Otherwise, one assumes the info is negative and being withheld to protect Sanofi/Genzyme.”

So Prof G sent an email so here is the responses from…..

Dr. Alasdair Coles from Cambridge says

“I agree that it is important that everyone sees the long-term data from alemtuzumab treatment. 

I promise you that Genzyme are not withholding it! In fact, they have no control over the data, since it comes from UK patients, treated from Cambridge. 
The reason that you have not seen these important results is simply because a scientific journal has not yet agreed to publish them. We have been trying for over a year to get the data published, but so far have been told that the information is not publishable, mainly because we do not have a satisfactory comparison group. We are working hard on this.
I will let you know when the results are “out”
Alasdair Coles”

To there you have it from the horse’s mouth. 

The publication process can be a drawn out affair e.g some stuff we published last year in 2013 was done in late 2000/Early 2001.

Why not just stick it (the work and paper) somewhere else? 

Well it is not that simple because our Bosses keep telling us….you must publish in this or that “high impact journal” or Else!! 

This is because this is a way ones performance/scientific esteem is judged e.g. For REF2014. 

So you spend months sending papers to journals only for the study to be rejected or the referees ask for more work (we did a post on the reviewing process click here

In addition sometimes you think the referees have a fair point of view and it is worth addressing if you can. Sometimes this takes time.

Why not spill the beans in social media?  
Well at present this is not the process for disseminating science information and in some cases this action could endanger publications appearing in certain journals because it would break their Embargos (we did a post on this click here).

About the author



By MouseDoctor



Recent Posts

Recent Comments