Follow the Data

A data driven blog

The Journal of Participatory Medicine calling all data geeks

The first, “launch” issue of the new Journal of Participatory Medicine was published today. The articles in it are mainly about “defining the territory”, as one subheading puts it, and about explaining how participatory medicine is important from the viewpoints of different stakeholders.

Esther Dyson has contributed an article (free registration may be required; I first read the article without having registered but had to register on my second visit) where she stresses the importance of data management and analysis:

So, here you have it — a call to inspired scientists, and clinician researchers, data-collectors, and data analysts: Help us understand the evidence that is already out there, but hidden under the virtual mattresses of paper files, incompatible formats, incomplete records, impenetrable bureaucracies.

The journal will be peer-reviewed and freely available on the web. Articles will be published continuously as they are accepted after review. In the launch announcement, the editors stress the importance of broad and accurate peer review, quoting recent complaints that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines” from a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and “most of what appears in peer reviewed journals is scientifically weak” from a former editor of the British Medical Journal.

I recently learned that an online journal about a similar (but different) field, personalized medicine, has been around for five years already. (There may be others too.) The journal is called Personalized Medicine.


Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “The Journal of Participatory Medicine calling all data geeks

  1. Petter Holme on said:

    “Most of what appears in peer reviewed journals is scientifically weak” is a pretty weak statement, scientifically. But true, there is much crappy science out there. It seems like another contradiction to raise the quality with peer review though, after all the crap has been peer reviewed.

    I think I have to revise my definition of participatory medicine though . . I thought that was more about involving the patients and their relatives than finding info in “incompatible formats” etc.

    • Mikael Huss on said:

      Well, I think your definition of participatory medicine is correct. I just cherry-picked the issue for things having to do with data.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: