Leading British Medical Journal's Review Process Assailed

VANCOUVER, December 17 - The influential British Medical Journal (BMJ) is under attack for
publishing an article on global war deaths that contains "serious
methodological and factual errors".

A new study by researchers from the UK, Canada and Sweden reveals that
the journal's peer review process failed to detect numerous errors in the
article. The journal has not issued any substantive corrections and has
rejected a request to publish a considered rebuttal.

In May 2008, the BMJ published, "Fifty Years of Violent War Deaths from
Vietnam to Bosnia" by Dr. Ziad Obermeyer and colleagues. The article
presented a detailed critique of a much-cited battle deaths dataset produced
at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).

The BMJ press release promoting the publication of the Obermeyer et al
article, stated that "Globally, war has killed three times more people than
previously estimated, and there is no evidence to support claims of a recent
decline in war deaths." But a new study, just published in the Journal of
Conflict Resolution (JCR), demonstrates that the article fails to
substantiate either assertion and shows little understanding of the research
it criticizes.

Lead authors, Professors Michael Spagat of the University of London, and
Andrew Mack of the Human Security Report Project, Simon Fraser University,
rejected the BMJ's claim that the article "was very thoroughly reviewed… by
appropriate experts."

"A recent in-depth analysis of the journal's peer review policy," Spagat
notes, "revealed that its own reviewers repeatedly fail to pick up major
errors in manuscripts." One of the authors of this critical study is the
BMJ's current editor.

The BMJ's stated policy is to "publish corrections when necessary." But
after Mack emailed the journal pointing out that the Obermeyer article
included six major methodological and/or factual errors, the journal failed
to acknowledge any of them.

The BMJ encourages 400 word online "rapid responses" to journal
articles. But, says Mack, "these are totally inadequate for dealing with
large numbers of errors, plus they reach very few readers and do not
constitute an official correction." A proposal for a considered - and
necessarily longer - rebuttal was ruled out by the journal.

There appears to be no way effectively to rebut BMJ articles that
contain large numbers of errors. The journal thus becomes effectively
unaccountable to its critics.

A concise summary of the major errors in the BMJ article, together with
links to that article, to the Journal of Conflict Resolution response and
its Appendix, and other resources can be accessed at:
www.hsrgroup.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=469

For further information: Professor Michael Spagat, University of London,
M.Spagat@rhul.ac.uk, +44-1784-414001; Professor Andrew Mack, Simon Fraser
University, amack@sfu.ca, +1(604)803-3549; Joakim Kreutz, Uppsala
University, Joakim.Kreutz@pcr.uu.se, +46(0)18-471-61-24

For further information: Professor Michael Spagat, University of London, M.Spagat at rhul.ac.uk, +44-1784-414001; Professor Andrew Mack, Simon Fraser University, amack at sfu.ca, +1(604)803-3549; Joakim Kreutz, Uppsala University, Joakim.Kreutz at pcr.uu.se, +46(0)18-471-61-24