Babies Affected by Dads'-Reply to Sandy Perle

[Naomi Esmon <esmonn@OMRF.OMRF.uokhsc.edu>]

At 12:14 PM 3/19/97, you wrote:
... I believe the real issue has to do 
>with WHY the Journal of Epidemiology published the article in the 
>first place. Didn't they review it for scientific/technical content? 
>One wonders.


As one who has reviewed papers for biochemistry journals of both high and
low quality (I do not know where J. Epidemiology rates on this scale),
please let me answer this.

  Negative data (i.e., no significant difference) is a valid result.
Presumably, as you state, the review process checked the validity of the
procedures used to come to this finding [where the Journal rates on the
quality scale can affect this, as can other factors these days, but
hopefully the readers know this quality]. The statement that "further work
is needed" is the OPINION of the authors, NOT of the journal. Please, you do
not want the journal censoring that opinion, even if it seems silly in your
eyes. Aspects of my field were held back many years because "the" expert
would review papers and reject those that had evidence contrary to his
hypothesis because they were "wrong." You can guess who was only partially
right.
  By the way--We all say "needs further study" when we can't think of a
catchier ending!

Naomi Esmon
Associate Member
Cardiovascular Biology Research Program
Okla. Medical Research Fndn.
Naomi-Esmon@omrf.uokhsc.edu