Talk:Sham peer review

message: 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)
thread_title:  reform of whistleblower laws to protect against sham peer reviews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Waxman bill 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yup. It's been on my list for awhile, but low priority. I'm glad to see someone taking an interest. MastCell Talk 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I would like to emphasise that I have no connection to any law firm and am attempting only to follow our sources, especially the AMA source, accurately. Incidentally, the reported death of a patient is not "alleged", as your edits state. Please consider whether your own relationship with this topic may bias your writing, as per WP:COI. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OIC, but the sentence says many incidents including a death. You are pretty liberal in concluding that there were many incidents including a death when now you only assert there was a death. I also note that you use the work allege in every sentence you added to this article previously. I also see that you conveniently ignored major thrusts of the AMA reference. Moreleave999 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There were alleged incidents, plural, according to the sources. There was also a death, which was reported, not alleged. The word "allege", although not used in every sentence, is meant to reflect the verifiable fact that cases of "sham peer review" are often so-labelled by interested parties. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SYN 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major restructuring 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correction to bad edit summary 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sham peer review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928210714/http://oahhs.org/legal/legal_services_bulletin_january2004.htm to http://oahhs.org/legal/legal_services_bulletin_january2004.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sham peer review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013180923/http://spectrum.ieee.org:80/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=w110101 to http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=w110101
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614003156/http://www.usd.edu:80/elderlaw/student_papers_f2003/health_care_quality_improvement_act.htm to http://www.usd.edu/elderlaw/student_papers_f2003/health_care_quality_improvement_act.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified