Citation

Behrangrad S, Yoosefinejad AK. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2022; 13(1): 40.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences)

DOI

10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_207_20

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

We have read the article entitled "Psychometric properties of the Persian version of MAFS[1] published in your journal recently. We have published an article entitled "Validity and reliability of MAFS in Iranian patients with relapsing-remitting subtype of multiple sclerosis."[2] We are aware of the importance of MAFS as a popular scale to evaluate fatigue; however, are not sure if performing the same research with similar objectives within a different population could be considered as novelty of a research. Moreover, we are sure that ignoring studies with similar concepts is not accepted both ethically and scientifically. Surely, as we are engaging in the same university as the authors of the aforementioned article, it was easy to find or request the full text of our article. We expect the authors to explain (1) Why they did not refer to an article which has the most similarity with them, (2) To see if considering such a similarity is accepted economically and ethically, and (3) What is the novelty of their research.

Language: en