|
|
|
|
MEDLINE BIAS, PART
2 |
|
Medline Bias: Update |
|
"As a general practitioner in Orthomolecular
Medicine ought to be indexed by
Medline. Using orthomolecular methods gives better clinical
results and is safer than pharmaceutical drugs. Full access to this knowledge is important to me, to my colleagues, and to their patients around the world." (Karin Munsterhjelm
Ahumada, M.D.) Medline Bias: Update by Andrew W. Saul (Reprinted
with permission from J Orthomolecular Med, 2006. Vol
21, No 2, p 67.) There
were 754 million Medline searches in the year 2005. Not one of those searches
found a single article from the Journal
of Orthomolecular Medicine. There is a growing appreciation in the
scientific community that the Journal is
being deliberately censored by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Since
1989, JOM has been rejected for
Medline indexing five times. This is
the decision of a journal review committee preselected
by NLM. When we have tried to clarify just what it is that Medline feels is
lacking, we have not received a specific answer. The score sheet that we do
get is vague, and offers no itemization of objectives for improvement. We are
told that, even though our score was not high enough for indexing, we can
resubmit and be scored again. Although this has an appearance of
open-mindedness, it is a convenient cover for institutional bias. By not
telling JOM what specific
objections it has, Medline assures that JOM
will never quite get it. It is reminiscent of an old-time small-town beauty
contest: if the contest judges don’t like the mayor, his daughter is not
going to get a very high score no matter what outfit she wears or what song
she sings. As Dr. Steve Hickey says, if the prosecution picks the jury, the
verdict is a foregone conclusion. We have
carried on what has become a fairly extensive correspondence with NLM as
represented by Chief of the Bibliographic Services Division and Medline
Executive Editor Sheldon Kotzin. In the interest of identifying and
correcting deficiencies, we have requested a laundry list of exactly what
changes JOM needs to make to gain a
score high enough for indexing. Mr. Kotzin has not provided the answer.
Instead, he has repeatedly directed us to Medline’s general requisites for
indexing a journal (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html
). Of the eight published “Critical Elements” for journal selection, it would
appear that the tip-off phrases may be these: Medline says it indexes
journals having "articles predominantly on core biomedical
subjects"; that "scientific merit of a journal's content is the
primary consideration"; and that they are looking for external peer
review. It is
possible, but unconfirmed, that NLM thinks that the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine lacks external peer review. It
would be a simple matter for them to simply say so, but they never have.
There may be a reason: if they flag that issue, then they would have to admit
us. In addition to its Editorial Review Board, JOM does indeed use external reviewers. I therefore think the
real deal-breakers are these: First, JOM
is a journal that discusses orthomolecular medicine, a field NLM probably
considers to be far removed from "core biomedical subjects." And,
as "scientific merit of a journal's content is the primary
consideration," we must conclude that, in the eyes of the US National
Library of Medicine, JOM lacks
scientific merit. Incidentally,
item number 4, Production Quality, does not seem to be an obstacle for JOM. We received a 4 out of a possible
5 in this category. This is quite significant, compared with zeroes, ones and
twos in all other categories. The idea
that the world’s most comprehensive medical library refuses to index a journal,
now entering its fortieth year of publication, is, well, you can fill in your
own blank. It increasingly looks as if the point of contention is not the
singer, but the song itself. Incidentally, Medline now
indexes Consumer Reports magazine. (If you think it is wrong that the taxpayer-supported For additional reading on
Medline bias: http://www.doctoryourself.com/medline.html Andrew Saul is the author of the books FIRE YOUR DOCTOR! How to be Independently
Healthy (reader reviews at http://www.doctoryourself.com/review.html
) and DOCTOR YOURSELF: Natural Healing
that Works. (reviewed at http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html
) For ordering information,
Click here . |
|
|
|
AN IMPORTANT NOTE: This page is not in any way offered as prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease, illness, infirmity or physical condition. Any form of self-treatment or alternative health program necessarily must involve an individual's acceptance of some risk, and no one should assume otherwise. Persons needing medical care should obtain it from a physician. Consult your doctor before making any health decision. Neither the author nor the webmaster has authorized the use of their names or the use of any material contained within in connection with the sale, promotion or advertising of any product or apparatus. Single-copy reproduction for individual, non-commercial use is permitted providing no alterations of content are made, and credit is given. |
||
|
|
|
| Home | Order my Books | About the Author | Contact Us | Webmaster | |
|
