Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Fundamentalism
- Ricardo Topolanski (6 June 2003)
-
ethics and publications
- susanne stevens, n/a (7 June 2003)
-
Article Withdrawal and E-publishing
- Eric Merkel-Sobotta (16 June 2003)
-
Censorship in medical journals
- Dr JK Anand (17 June 2003)
-
It is worth re-publishing
- Khurram Ayub (19 June 2003)
-
1984
- Michael Montemurro (5 August 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Ricardo Topolanski, Editor Montevideo, Uruguay. Pedro Berro 1396/801 Cp 11300
Send response to journal:
|
Muslims are not the only fundamentalists.Think! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
susanne stevens, retired cardiff cf24 3pf, n/a
Send response to journal:
|
Some years ago the Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry sought advice from barrister Brigette Dimmond who advised that the editor of the journal would be culpable in law for breach of ethical conduct in publication, that is, not simply the authors of articles. Some journals include a rider to effect that any offence would be the responsiblility of the individual author eg the Journal of Guidance and Counselling states that it should be impossible for an article to identify a person or for the person to be identified by others. This shows a lack of awareness of the Data Protection Act which obliges practitioners to advise people of any potential use of their information - and leaves practitioners themselves at risk of complaints. Since the advice was sought (but not welcomed and contested by some practitionres) several members of the college of psychiatrists have been found guilty of breaches of ethical conduct with reference to other publications, by the GMC and Information Commissioner. Several have been published in a specialist journal which does not subscribe to the Vancouver guidelines. Nor it seems are all widely read journals, for instance in the field of psychology where members can be medically trained,necessarily members of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). The present Editor of the Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, for example, is a Senior Social Worker based at the Tavistock in Camden but publishes material submitted by medically trained practitioners, psychologists, counsellors, trainee therapists and contributions from doctors from abroad. All have diffrent Codes of Practice and complaints procedures which make monitoring of standards and dealing with breaches of ethical practice more complicated. Until there is one overarching body which governs publication ethics there will still be those who attempt to exploit loopholes in laws and established guidelines. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Eric Merkel-Sobotta, Director, Corporate Relations, Elsevier 1055 KV Amsterdam
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, We read with great interest the editorial on “Editorial misconduct” (BMJ 2003; 326: 1224-1225 (7 June) and the article entitled “Pitfalls of editorial miscommunication” (BMJ 2003; 326: 1262-1264 (7 June). Your readers might be interested in more recent developments, which were omitted from both pieces. Elsevier recognises the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attaches the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive. The Human Immunology case was indeed one that will be remembered for quite some time. The difficulty with this case from a scholarly publisher’s point of view is the fact that the journal is owned and editorially managed (and not just sponsored) by the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics. The society and its editor have ultimate authority and responsibility over the actions taken in respect of editorial policy, procedures and the application of those policies in specific cases. Furthermore, Elsevier publishes the journal for the society under contract and is therefore bound to act on behalf of the society and its editors as instructed. At the time of the incident, there was indeed no policy in place to which the publisher could refer the society in their desire to expunge the offending paper. The Human Immunology case prompted us to consult several stakeholders, including librarians, researchers and academics on this matter and, in February 2003, we implemented a more detailed and transparent policy, which deals with article retraction, article removal and article replacement. Indeed, the policy now in place would require the paper to remain on the ScienceDirectŇ database with a “RETRACTED” watermark. A significant number of articles that were removed have now been reinstated in full or are in the process of being reprocessed via the new policy, and will shortly reappear. The remainder of the articles is the subject of negotiations with editors or societies. For one or two of these articles, we have been informed that they are subject to legal or contractual constraints, which we are attempting to resolve as quickly as possible. As standards evolve, we will adapt the current policy. We welcome the input of the scholarly and library communities and will seek to have this issue discussed in the relevant professional associations with a view to establishing universally recognized standards and best practices. The policy can be read on our website at: http://www.elsevier.com/homepage/about/ita/editors/newsitems/withdrawal_policy.htm Sincerely, Eric Merkel-Sobotta
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr JK Anand, Retired public health physician Not applicable
Send response to journal:
|
Whilst I am pleased that Shashok has written this article in the BMJ, I still await an answer to my question (BMJ 2002 http://bmj.com/cgi/letters/324/7339/695 - 15 April 2002): An article which published unchallenged data,with conclusions unchallenged by the referees was sought to be obliterated from scientific records. Why? If the conclusions were contentious, why did the Journal concerned not publish opposing views. Equally important to the readers of the BMJ is the question: why does the BMJ editor remain silent on this issue? After all he did voice his thoughts when Brother George was fired. It is possible that the armies and the camp followers of Alexander the Great carried the thalassaemia genes to the then India (the land on both sides of the river Indus.) Would this suggestion be considered a political heresy? And should Arnaiz-Villena be tempted to investigate possible gene flow from the Mediterranean across Iran to the two Punjabs (Indian and Pakistani), will the resulting paper be rejected by the BMJ on the grounds that its content is political? COPE is an irrelevancy. Commonsense should be enough. JK ANAND Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Khurram Ayub, Honorary Lecturer in Surgery University of Wales College of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN
Send response to journal:
|
EDITOR-Shasok has highlighted1 pitfalls of editorial miscommunication and events that surrounded the retraction of Arneiz-Villena et al keynote paper2. In my opinion this is the most severe case of confusion and hasty editorial response to reaction to a scientific study. Clearly a special issue of Human Immunology does not make the breakfast table of ordinary public. Some remarks may have been unjustified but should have been picked up during the peer-review process. Most readers of immunological journals perhaps are more interested in the scientific rather then the political content of any such study. Scientific validity of this study has never been challenged. I would suggest that since this paper has been hastily killed by Human Immunology, Prof. Arneiz-Villena may perhaps be invited to re- publish this keynote paper in the BMJ. As a reader of the BMJ I would like this journal to provide the lead to uphold freedom of publishing scientific information. “Historic genomics” by implication is going to encroach upon our sense of history. But, this should not prevent the scientists to carry out and publish such research that is already carried out and published on all other living animals. On the other hand, re-submission would also provide an opportunity to screen the article for political comments that do not relate to scientific data. Judging from my experience of peer-reviewing articles for other immunological journals I am sure that most peer-referees would comment on irrelevant remarks and ask for an edit. Controversy at times can draw readers’ attention to a study. What could be more topical than this study at the times when “road-map for middle-east” is the hottest news? Khurram Ayub Competing interests: None 1 Shashok K. Pitfalls of editorial miscommunication. BMJ 2003; 326:1262-4. 2 Arnaiz-Villena A, Elaiwa N, Silvera C, Rostom A, Moscoso J, GómezCasado E, et al. The origin of Palestenians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations [Retracted in Hum Immunol 2001;62:1063]. Hum Immunol Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Montemurro, Hemato-Oncology Greifswald, Germany
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, With utmost concern I learned from Karen Shashok (1) that an inopportune article was (asked to be) electronically deleted and physically removed, such as it never had existed. The naive might say, what the matter, but please keep in mind: Today's information is often stored electronically, centralized, its access easily controllable. These data can be manipulated with an unprecedented ease or denied to access. If we cannot guarantee the availability of a scientifically unchallenged article, what about the other information. Therefore I vote for keeping relevant information in print disseminated in libraries throughout the world. Let´s have a look ahead: The computer industry and its TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance) Initiative are planning to "secure" (in official terms) your computer to e.g. prevent virus-malfunction, violation of copyrights. To achieve this your computer will be permanently connected to a central surveillance system that grants permits for using specific functions and information. Without such a permit you could possibly be denied access to your very own private data on your very private computer. Do you still have Orwell´s “1984” as a book ? Keep it ! Yours sincerely
(1) Shashok K. Pitfalls of editorial miscommunication. BMJ 2003; 326: 1262-4 Competing interests: None declared |
|||