Submited on: 06 Nov 2010 10:04:42 AM GMT
Published on: 06 Nov 2010 10:36:33 AM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The paper: “Homeopathy in upper Respiratory Tract Infection? The impact of plausibility bias”, describes a very relevant situation in science today, where accumulating evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy may be ignored because of the inherent implausibility that the use of highly-diluted solutions in homeopathy can have an effect.


    The first part of the paper is clearly written in describing the plausibility paradox in relation to evidence-based medicine and how the plausibility bias obstructs the acceptance of homeopathy. The second part of the paper is a bit confusing. According to the opinion of the authors there is “sufficient” evidence that homeopathy is effective in the treatment of URTI and that on the basis of this evidence homeopathy should be considered a serious treatment option for this condition. Nevertheless, it seems that despite this evidence the authors are of the opinion that further research on homeopathy in URTI is needed. They shortly touch several aspects why there is a high need of alternative treatments like homeopathy and how a future trials should be designed. This second part lacks focus. The recommended design of such a future trial is poorly worked out, for instance on the basis of the already existing evidence. The authors call for a pragmatic and large scale design without further specification on what such a trial should look like or, in their opinion, how such studies may contribute to the existing plausibility paradox.


    According to my opinion this paper should focus on its original intention, the plausibility paradox in relation to homeopathy. If the authors also intend to elaborate how to further research in homeopathy, despite the existing plausibility paradox, more attention should be given to describe the framework of pragmatic designs in homeopathy and its value in the acceptance of homeopathy as a serious treatment option.

  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    More than 10 years of experience with (clinical) studies in the area of homeopathyh

  • How to cite:  Jong M .?Homeopathy in upper Respiratory Tract Infection? The impact of plausibility bias?[Review of the article 'Homeopathy In Upper Respiratory Tract Infections ? The Impact Of Plausibility Bias ' by Fisher P].WebmedCentral 2011;2(3):WMCRW00621
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse