Comments on: Unprecedented? Journal yanks transcendental meditation paper 12 minutes before it’s scheduled to publish http://retractionwatch.com/2011/06/29/unprecedented-journal-yanks-transcendental-meditation-paper-12-minutes-before-its-scheduled-to-publish/ Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Sat, 07 Mar 2015 01:04:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1 By: Chrissyhttp://retractionwatch.com/2011/06/29/unprecedented-journal-yanks-transcendental-meditation-paper-12-minutes-before-its-scheduled-to-publish/#comment-1856 Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:45:59 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=3091#comment-1856 I love that you call him “Mahesh” instead of Maharishi. I do the same thing, refusing to use a high honorific that someone gave themselves.

]]>
By: sudarshahttp://retractionwatch.com/2011/06/29/unprecedented-journal-yanks-transcendental-meditation-paper-12-minutes-before-its-scheduled-to-publish/#comment-1852 Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:43:21 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=3091#comment-1852 Perhaps I should also add that I was one of Mahesh’s personal secretaries, helped make the SCI course, was one of the course leaders for a course of about 1,500 people and taught TM to about 800 people. I am now one of the critics of everything that Mahesh tried to do, which, basically, was to squeeze as much money out of people as he possibly could by making impossible promises, like levitation, perfect health, immortality (you’ve got to back in the advertising to the 80’s for that one). Check out: http://tmfree.blogspot.com/ for more information.

]]>
By: sudarshahttp://retractionwatch.com/2011/06/29/unprecedented-journal-yanks-transcendental-meditation-paper-12-minutes-before-its-scheduled-to-publish/#comment-1851 Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:39:43 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=3091#comment-1851 It would be very good if ALL TM-related “research” were pulled and reviewed by real scientists who knew nothing about TM, had no interests in any aspect of the TM program or any of Mahesh’s strange stuff (claiming that the so-called ‘yogic flying’ is the first stage of “levitation” is pretty strange), and just reviewed it on the merit of the work itself.

I’ll bet that would generate an outcome quite surprising to many and horrifying to the people who operate the TM organization.

]]>
By: Neuroskeptichttp://retractionwatch.com/2011/06/29/unprecedented-journal-yanks-transcendental-meditation-paper-12-minutes-before-its-scheduled-to-publish/#comment-1849 Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:50:16 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=3091#comment-1849 “During the week prior to publication, the authors received additional requests for further clarification and data analyses from external reviewers.”

That’s extremely unusual. Reviewers often ask for more data, but not after they’ve approved it for publication. The reviewers behaved in a very strange (and rather unfair) manner, and the editor did too if he allowed that – assuming there’s not more going on here behind the scenes.

]]>
By: Jann Ingmirehttp://retractionwatch.com/2011/06/29/unprecedented-journal-yanks-transcendental-meditation-paper-12-minutes-before-its-scheduled-to-publish/#comment-1847 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:07:09 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=3091#comment-1847 My apologies to Shelley. It really was just your timing in the midst of our busy afternoon. I should have followed-up with you. Jann Ingmire

]]>
By: Shelley Woodhttp://retractionwatch.com/2011/06/29/unprecedented-journal-yanks-transcendental-meditation-paper-12-minutes-before-its-scheduled-to-publish/#comment-1846 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:51:53 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=3091#comment-1846 Huh. I guess timing is everything. I wrote, almost immediately, to JAMA/Archives to ask about the status of this unusual 11th hour communication, and whether we could report on it on http://www.theheart.org. Here’s the response I got at 3:07 CT Monday, from the Director of Media Relations.

>>Hi Shelley — That’s an interesting question. Hmmm…. Yes, I guess our notice to reporters before the embargo lifted on a paper we’re not publishing is not really for public consumption. The manuscript information is still considered to be confidential until publication.

>>Thanks for checking.
>>Jann Ingmire

Sometimes it sucks to follow the rules: you get scooped, the rules change, or both!

]]>