Re: Wing: Descriptive Epidemiology...

["John Moulder" <jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu>]

> John, Others, Is EHP a publication of NIEHS? Is it somehow 
> editorially independent, or is this an actual "gov't publication"? 

Yes, EHP is an NIEHS Publication.  It is not a government publication in the 
sense that its contents do not require NIEHS approval nor do they necessarily 
reflect NIEHS policy.  How "editorially independent" they are in reality could 
only be assessed by someone who has been on their editorial board.

As to peer-review in EHP.  The rigor of the peer-review depends on the type of 
article, and since the TOC of the issue is not available even on the web, I 
can't tell whether this was considered a "research" article or a 
"perspectives" article.  If this was considered a "research" piece, it would 
have gotten three reviewers, while if it was a "perspective", it might not 
have been reviewed at all.  Even if it was peer-reviewed, the reviewers would 
probably not have included anyone from the Hatch et al papers, and might not 
have included a radiation epidemiologist.

EHP is a decent journal, but it is not a first-line journal even in 
environmental epidemiology.  I find most of their research articles adequate, 
but unremarkable.  If have often found their editorial, perspective and 
commentary articles to be rather flaky.

What I find most unusual about how EHP handled Wing et al are:

1)  The advance press release.  This release went out on a Saturday targeted 
for Monday press coverage.  This made it impossible for most reporters to get 
any independent commentary.  The printed version of the actual article is 
still not available.  The WWW version was not available till some time late 
Tues or early Wed.  The release method appears geared to maximize press 
coverage and minimize critical analysis.  One thing I do not know is whether 
the press release came from EHP of whether it came from the authors (anyone 
have the press release -- it will say).

2)  The rather intemperate nature of the language in the article.  Why didn't 
the editors require them to tone it down?  Editors can, and frequently do, 
require such changes.

3)  The extensive reliance in the article on anecdotal sources, and on sources 
that are largely unavailable in the US.  Most editors do not allow such 
sources in research articles.


John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu)
Radiation Biology Group
Medical College of Wisconsin