BMJ  2003;327:1113 (8 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1113

reviews

Journals

Have editors got their priorities right?

Whistleblower claims they are more worried about being sued for libel than about ensuring research is valid

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Journal editors are much more frightened of being sued for libel by academics or drug companies than they are of publishing fraudulent research, the whistleblower Peter Wilmshurst claimed last week.

And he should know. He has spent the last 25 years of his life trying to expose cases of research misconduct (reporting more than 20 doctors to the General Medical Council), and has found it an uphill struggle. His career has suffered and he has received many brickbats and few bouquets.

Dr Wilmshurst, a consultant cardiologist at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust, was describing his experiences to the annual meeting of HealthWatch, an organisation set up to campaign against health fraud. Television presenter Nick Ross presented him with the organisation's annual award for his courage in challenging misconduct in medical research.

Dr Wilmshurst explained how he knew that journal editors were more worried by libel than dubious research. He . . . [Full text of this article]

-->

BMJ aferriman@bmj.com

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: We need whistleblowers

John S Garrow
BMJ 2004 328: 230. [Extract] [Full Text]

Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: External checks must be imposed to protect the public

Peter Wilmshurst
BMJ 2004 328: 230. [Extract] [Full Text]

Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: Everyone in science must be active in its process

John H Lange
BMJ 2004 328: 230. [Extract] [Full Text]

Claims and counter claims

Kamran Abbasi
BMJ 2003 327: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Goodman, N. W (2004). The policing of science. JRSM 97: 259-261 [Full text]  
• Garrow, J. S (2004). Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: We need whistleblowers. BMJ 328: 230-230 [Full text]  
• Wilmshurst, P. (2004). Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: External checks must be imposed to protect the public. BMJ 328: 230-230 [Full text]  
• Lange, J. H (2004). Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: Everyone in science must be active in its process. BMJ 328: 230-230 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Keep blowing your whistle....

Iain D Beardsell
bmj.com, 7 Nov 2003 [Full text]

Research should be monitored by “local research approval committees”

Akheel A Syed, et al.
bmj.com, 9 Nov 2003 [Full text]

Local monitoring? Why not a demand for internet data?

Neville W Goodman
bmj.com, 12 Nov 2003 [Full text]

Priorities: what editors really need

John H. Lange
bmj.com, 13 Nov 2003 [Full text]

Raw data - Publishing raw data and real time statistical analysis on e-journals

David J R Hutchon
bmj.com, 15 Nov 2003 [Full text]

We need whistleblowers

John S Garrow
bmj.com, 17 Nov 2003 [Full text]

External scrutiny is required for protection of the public

Peter T Wilmshurst
bmj.com, 1 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>