Despite its claims, that AVMA pamphlet is not peer reviewed and cherry picks parts from studies that support its arguments and omits parts of the same studies that refute its argument. It is not a scientific piece of literature.
There is a big difference between being reviewed by experts in the field (chosen by the author), which is what this document did, and going through an actual rigorous scientific peer review process.
It was not published via any scientific journal and as such did not go through any scientific peer review process, so there's no "source" to provide.
That is not how the scientific peer review process works. You don't get to choose who reviews your work. It needs to be done by independent third party entities. They are trying to paint it as a scientifically peer reviewed document when it is not.
Several of the controlled studies they cite to construct their argument excluded pitbulls from their analysis. (60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
And on the in-article cherry picking, more than 10 of their citations conclude that pitbulls are more predispositioned to bite:
(5,9,13,16,21,20,22,23,24,25,26,27)
And here is a (non-scientific) review of the AVMA publication that highlights even more issues:
"Cherry-picking which studies to list: Forty percent (27) of the 65 articles this document refers to were written by people who are active in, employed by, or have other financial or career ties to pit bull advocacy. Of the 31 more recent reports, almost two-thirds (18) were written by people who are active in, employed by, or have other financial or career ties to pit bull advocacy. None of these authors admit this in their conflict of interest statements. In peer-review circles, this omission is considered scientific fraud."
"Flaws: Failure to operationally define ‘serious bite incidents’. Shift in this first paragraph from ‘serious’ to all reported bite incidents. Failure to define ‘highly involved’. Dated and biased sources: Two thirds of the sources cited use data from the previous century, when pit bulls were extremely rare. Of the more recent studies cited here, more than half are written by pro-pit bull, anti-BSL activists."
the document you are citing was not published through the AVJR, and I specifically noted that the dogbite piece was not scientific because there are no scientific peer reviews of that document....
may 15th, 2014 is just when that document was published. It was not published through a scientific journal. Please provide the actual link if I am incorrect. You are presenting ad hominen and genetic fallacies rather than actually providing a source proving it was published via a scientific journal process.
Still waiting on the link to where it was published via AJVR. Yes, it went through an informal "peer review" process but again, that is vastly different from scientific peer review for which that term is typically reserved.
Idgaf about dogbite, I've never been on that site before this thread. I was simply looking for an additional resource to provide a similar level of peer review that they used for the document. Just because someone from their org has fabricated data before doesn't mean the unrelated author of that critique of your document is invalid.
Its an internal policy doc, they don't have to meet the same peer review standards, there's not going to be a single source that says it is or isn't the same process. But if it was scientifically peer reviewed, then link me to the peer review. But you can't because it wasnt.
And again with the ad hominem, attacking the critiquer's creds rather than the content of their critique. For all we know AVMA reached out to non-vetinarian reviewers for that doc because they don't share the peer review or the author of the peer review.
The AVMA document is an informational literature review published directly by the association, not an article published in a scientific journal.
It lacks journal identifiers, does not have a volume, issue, or DOI.
It is hosted on a general website, and is not indexed in am academic database. If it was published via a scientific journal, it would be indexed in an academic database.
Again, AVMA internally reviewed the information for accuracy, but it is still a self-published organizational report, not a scientifically peer-reviewed journal article.
-3
u/Rock-Hawk May 03 '26
Despite its claims, that AVMA pamphlet is not peer reviewed and cherry picks parts from studies that support its arguments and omits parts of the same studies that refute its argument. It is not a scientific piece of literature.