BMJ sports journal beclown themselves

I posted this on the other thread discussing this paper and thought it would be relevant here too.

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/beef-trifle

“To illustrate the problems with this paper, its conclusions, and the way these are being represented in popular media, I will simply address the single most implausible supposed finding: that there is no difference in upper body strength between female athletes and males after cross-sex hormones and testosterone reduction….

…What has happened here is:

• A team of researchers at São Paulo University conducted research at the request of men with a vested interest in being included in female sports, which compared below-average men with low grip strength to national-level female athletes in the top 1% of female performance.
• Another team of researchers at São Paulo University included this in a systematic review and - instead of dropping it because of the clear methodological issues and confounding factors - combined it with multiple other studies that can’t be directly compared, and produced a result so incoherent as to be meaningless.
• Then, they declared in their conclusion that because they had a meaningless result they had found an “absence of strength disparities”, while arguing their research was evidence against “blanket bans”.
• This was then published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The systematic review’s conclusion that there is a lack of strength disparities and that this has implications for sports policy is based on statistically untenable foundations. While I tend to give short shrift to those on the sidelines who cry foul about science that is inconvenient to their political aims, it really does seem that the chain of trust in science has been seriously damaged by activism and groupthink in the area of sex and gender. From paediatric gender medicine to sports science, badly designed studies and papers with obvious issues are being waved through by compliant journals, and shoddy, meaningless results spun as triumphs by political partisans. These generate exactly the expected headlines, which translate into pressure on institutions and political leaders. We need to be able to rely on the scientific method to provide us with a dispassionate and neutral assessment of the evidence which rises above such blatant policy advocacy.”

TBH, peer review is broken. Reviewers are far too often PhD students or recent post-docs on zero-hours contracts. I don't mean to denigrate them but the reality is that they're not the true experts in their various fields. The social & economic pressures on them to approve fashionable papers are not insignificant, nor are the time constraints - most junior academics I know have to work a second job to pay their rent & eat.

There's an entity which publishes scientific articles, not just medical ones, called Frontiers Media.

It says "Each manuscript submitted to a Frontiers journal goes through a series of research integrity assessments before peer review, multiple checkpoints during review, and a final validation before publication."
https://www.frontiersin.org/about/peer-review

Compare and contrast.

In which case one wonders why they bother, it might as well be a fanzine.

From the Independent article:
"Experts, who were not involved in the study, urge caution in interpreting the findings, though many appreciate it as a step in the right direction."

I'm sure it's just (in)judicious use of the comma, but this does sound a bit like they're giving a disclaimer - "No experts were involved in this study!"

But if the BMJ Group is going to publish unreviewed, unverified, poor quality papers, the disclaimer needs to be right at the beginning. In a text box headed WARNING in dayglo caps.

Apparently it's often added to preprints, which this is.

There was a time [20 year ago] when the BMJ was widely respected for the quality and rigor of its published papers and articles. Alas that is no longer true.

The BMJ Group, despite publishing the thing, wants us all to know that at the same time it has nothing to do with it and is not to blame if it's a pile of crap.

"This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise."

The people who want male people to compete in female sports categories. They no doubt sent this when it was in pre print to the IOC for consideration.

Who is still pushing for this utter nonsense?

@ZeldaFighter Hamilton's MMU bio they/thems him so presumably his "gender journey" has now staggered to enbie like so many others.

I can't believe this 'research' has seen the light of day. I'd be too embarassed. They, clearly are not. They should lay off the booze and re-read they's work

Blair Hamilton is probably a "they" because he can't make his mind up

I despair

Its another study that I couldn't have let my students get away with. As Emma Hilton, and others, have been explaining, its flaws are myriad and absolutely deadly

Basically it's shite!

‘Landmark study’…a Highly influential, groundbreaking piece of research that fundamentally transforms the understanding of, treatment or approach within a specific field…

Forgive me, but I had to laugh 😂

How were they able to distinguish between the dress up men and the women?

I remember an article about a young boy that claimed he was a real girl competing in a US college race. The College were so determined to prove that the TG didn’t have an advantage and he finished somewhere in the middle of the competitors.
However when competing in a race with another college team, he came 1st. Suddenly he had gained such super ability to outperform real girls.

Ideological drivel masked as journalism in the Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/trans-athlete-womens-sports-advantage-b2913479.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Bluesky&test_group=lighteradlayout#comments-area

The comments are good though

So the “news” is that a man who wants to play in a women’s sports team has collected selective evidence in an attempt to get his way.

And as @LeftieRightsHoarder has pointed out, via Alun Williams, any other man in a similar situation has a vested interest in pretending to be weaker or slower that they are.

Add that to the obvious fact that anyone choosing to lie about their sex is inherently untrustworthy and you have a perfect storm of self-interested dishonesty.

It doesn't actually matter if the study is rubbish or worthy, the only criteria for women's sports should be that you must be a women, which trans women are not.

What a surprise, this study is shite. I do commend the Telegraph for the photo they have chosen to use to illustrate it.

Even his support for this rehash identifying as something new seems decidedly lukewarm.

The university refers to Hamilton as They on the website, and he looks to get 'masculine presenting' so I'm guessing de-transitioned to non-binary from transwoman?

Not that it matters, his research is still absolute bobbins.

Huh…. So absolutely no why to check if these male ‘athletes’ performed below their maximum at all and no tracking.

Also interesting to note that they didn’t do a section on skeletal differences. And we were assured this week by two male posters that their skeletons ‘configured’ to be completely female with estrogen. I kid you not. So I would like to have seen evidence of this but was told to google as there was plenty… strange because if this was documented, it would have been included in this study.

In fact, the authors noted structural differences remain as per a study from Dr Lundberg but stated that they were irrelevant because they said strength was similar and swerved into reminding people of all the stigmatisation that these male athletes face.