First PhD Publication!

I’m delighted to say that the first publication for my PhD work has been accepted. The Journal of Haemophilia Practice (whose submission processes are smooth and swift) have been kind enough to publish this:

Heading for a journal reading: The impact of the Contaminated Blood Scandal on the next generation: the state of the evidence by Sally-Anne Wherry, Liz Berragan, Ros Jennings.

If you want to read it in full, you can find it here: Wherry, S. A., Berragan, E., & Jennings, R. (2023). The Impact of the Contaminated Blood Scandal on the Next Generation. The Journal of Haemophilia Practice.

This is the partner piece to one I have submitted and not yet heard about. This one of the literature review, seeking the current literature on the impact of the contaminated blood scandal on the adult children of those affected. This is the abstract:

The Contaminated (or Tainted) Blood Scandal was a worldwide event that infected many people,
including haemophiliacs, with blood-borne diseases (Lee, 2015). This has had a significant
psychological impact on the families involved, alongside the physical and financial toil. Although
some studies have focused on those directly affected, both haemophiliacs, their families, and the
community, very little is known about the intergenerational impact. This narrative review explores
the impact on the children of haemophiliacs affected by the contaminated blood, demonstrating a
significant gap in the understanding of the families’ experiences

This really showed me how little is known or published about the impact on the families of the people with haemophilia affected by the contaminated blood scandal – so very little that I could find snippets apart from one researcher who did an amazing amount of interviews in France. The journal is open source so it is available to read for anyone.

As an early career researcher (always funny to me since I am fity this year), the experience of publication was one that filled me with anxiety. Despite this and the reputation of Reviewer 3 (see below), I was lucky and both reviewers were supportive and really improved the quality of the paper with their comments. The speed of the process was amazing to me, with submission and final acceptance within two months of each other.

Cartoonish image with three reviewers, where one and two have bits in common but connected to contents of the paper, and reviewer 3 separately telling you what you should have done.

Overall, I’m really excited about this, and with my ethics on its final reviews, I feel as though I am actually moving now!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.