Published 31 March 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1352
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1352

News

JAMA’s new rule on whistleblowers creates controversy

¹ New York

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

The announcement by the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association that, in future, anyone writing to the journal about a possible conflict of interest on the part of authors must keep silent while their allegations are investigated has aroused a storm of criticism.

The new policy (http://jama.ama-assn.org/misc/jed90012pap_E1_E3.pdf) was announced after Jonathan Leo, professor of neuroanatomy at Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate, Tennessee, and Jeffrey Lacasse, of Arizona State University, published a letter online in the BMJ in which they criticised a study published in JAMA and pointing out that the lead author had not reported a conflict of interest (http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/338/feb05_1/b463#208503,9Feb2009).

The American Medical Association, JAMA’s owner and publisher, has said in a press release that it is referring the controversy to JAMA’s journal oversight committee. It said, "While we are ultimately responsible for these publications, as most in the medical and . . . [Full text of this article]

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

Relevant Articles

JAMA should change its policy on investigating competing interests, AMA says

Janice Hopkins Tanne
BMJ 2009 339: b2936. [Extract] [Full Text]

JAMA’s rule needs time limit

Nigel Dudley
BMJ 2009 338: b1615. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Dudley, N. (2009). JAMA's rule needs time limit. BMJ 338: b1615-b1615 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Is JAMA’s new rule really “a dangerous position”?

Nigel Dudley
bmj.com, 11 Apr 2009 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>