期刊接受了对巴勒斯坦难民的简单横断面调查。提交人是一名巴勒斯坦，由慈善机构和在海外大学的研究雇用。该研究含有新数据，在横断面调查的约束范围内似乎提供了方法。本文被送到了该地区专业知识的两位同行评审员，中东国际问题经验，并了解所涉及的敏感性。修订后，本文被公布。本文的政治有一个巴勒斯坦泛音，但这并没有贬低研究结果。并鉴于提交人的附属机构的明确证据，决定尊重这个人的意见，并允许读者得出自己的结论。出版后，一封电子邮件几乎可以从公共卫生的研究员和以色列大学的“冲突决议”的主任。他们没有质疑这篇文章的科学的基础，而是袭击了审查进程，并指责他们在他们发表的理由上向他们发表了“科学论文，通过选择性和误导性的背景事实表达了明确的政治议程”。编辑给第一作者回复了回复并将这张封信和答复一起发布。 They also commented on the correspondence, pointing out that the decision to publish was based on the science and the new findings. The editors acknowledged the politics present in both the article and correspondence, but stated that they considered their readers intelligent enough to understand such issues and take them into account. They also indicated that they would review their procedures. The two Israeli correspondents also presented a political polemic and used this to attack the editorial and peer review process. This is not dissimilar to the situation in areas such as archaeology, where nationalistic narratives have become part of the ongoing battleground of the near and Middle East. - Did the editors allow any political bias to affect the peer review or editorial decision making process?
- 没有政治偏见的证据，但可能有可能采取更加谨慎的方法，因为鉴于强烈的政治背景，更广泛的同行评审。- 医学在政治真空中不存在，并且需要讨论和公布这些问题。
不需要采取行动。