Published 21 April 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1615
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1615

Letters

Competing interests et al

JAMA’s rule needs time limit

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

JAMA’s policy in relation to those who may raise concerns about selective disclosures or misleading information in a published article is not altogether unreasonable if it had a time limit for the period of requested silence during a fair investigation of concerns.¹ The real question for journal editors should be how long is reasonable: five weeks, five months, 15 months?

The BMJ’s standard seems to be something less than five months, given that it published Leo’s concerns. If the desirable investigation period is agreed to be less than five months, what should it be so as to account for matters such as complexity or ease of contact with authors? Medical journal editors should work together to come up with a universal policy that is fair to both a journal and the person raising any concern about a journal’s potentially misleading or incorrect content.

Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1615

¹ St James’s University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF

---

. . . [Full text of this article]

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

Relevant Article

JAMA’s new rule on whistleblowers creates controversy

Janice Hopkins Tanne
BMJ 2009 338: b1352. [Extract] [Full Text]

Online poll

Find out more >>