BMC Cancer, WDDTY and homeopathy: ‘new’ comment

It took (me) a month to get a comment posted on a paper on BMC Cancer’s site. My abbreviated version (which appeared five days after re-submitting it) has now sat there for three weeks alongside Kausik’s, both seemingly being roundly ignored. As is my query concerning the full text of my original blog post. What to do? Does it matter?

Well, actually, as a QuackRag deems that the paper in question constitutes subject(ive) matter for (re-)citation, then yes, I think it does. So I have re-worked and combined my original post (2,588 words) with material from it’s second follow-up (1,645 words) into a composite edited comment, and as of today, submitted it for posting at BMC Cancer. Kind of a test. I won’t (re-)bore you with it here (unless anybody wants me to) as, at 1989 words, it is still lengthy (– thus likely too lengthy for acceptance). But I will update on whether and when it appears.

4 responses to “BMC Cancer, WDDTY and homeopathy: ‘new’ comment

  1. Pingback: Pseudoscience Awareness Week | Lee Turnpenny·

  2. Pingback: Another comment on BMC Cancer, WDDTY and homeopathy | Lee Turnpenny·

  3. Pingback: Another comment on BMC Cancer, WDDTY and homeopathy | The Mawk Moth Profligacies·

Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s