Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Retraction of Press Releases
- Carla Dionne (17 October 2003)
-
Retraction is not enough
- Sayed S. Bukhari (17 October 2003)
-
A golden opporunity to retract also editorial mistakes
- Saul N Malozowski (18 October 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Carla Dionne, Executive Director National Uterine Fibroids Foundation
Send response to journal:
|
At what point does the BMJ retract misleading press releases which have potentially caused great harm to the public trust as well as future clinical care and treatment decision-making by patients? The BMJ's recent publication of hysterectomy & sexual function by Roovers et al. destroyed my trust of this medical publication. This editorial did NOT restore it. Not one iota. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sayed S. Bukhari, Consultant MIcrobiologist Leicester Royal Infirmary, UHL NHS Trust
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor I agree with you that retraction of publication should be reserved for cases of serious scientific misconduct, fraud or major error arising from negligence on part of the author(s). However, I believe that retraction alone is insufficient. Retraction should accompany reporting of the author(s)involved to appropriate authorities for a possible disciplinary action and criminal investigation. Yours sincerely Sayed S. Bukhari Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Saul N Malozowski, Senior Advisor MSC-5460, Bethesda MD 20892-5460
Send response to journal:
|
October 17, 2003 Richard Smith Editor, BMJ BMJ Publishing Group BMA House Tavistock Square London WC1H 9JR United Kingdom T +44(0)20 7387 4499 F +44(0)20 7383 6418 Dear Dr Smith: Smith states that fraud or major error should be the landmarks for retraction from scientific papers (1). It is easy to agree with this proposal. In addition, he lists the difficulties in undertaken this process. These complexities should not be barriers to right a wrong, even though many may not learn of the corrections. Regardless of the reasons for error or the nature of the error the first step to remediate it, is to retract the mistaken information. In this vein, I will reiterate my request for retraction of one of the recent journal editorials (2; please see your August files for my formal request.) The main reasons for this request are: 1) This was an editorial; hence it was strongly endorsed by the journal. 2) Although there was no peer review process and its legitimacy from the review point of view was more lax, the content of the editorial may have an important impact. 3) As the current paper under discussion, the editorial was factually incorrect, as stated in my letter and in the published electronic letters that followed. 4) The potential for misuse of this information is much far reaching than the impact that the paper that motivated today’s editorial has. Given these elements, the Journal’s editorial staff could show its leadership in admitting that even editorial errors can be retracted. Such an action may open a new chapter in editorial policy where so far only contributors’ errors have been recognized. Saul Malozowski, M.D, Ph.D., MBA Senior Advisor for Clinical Trials and Diabetes Translation Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 6707 Democracy Blvd RM 679, MSC5460 Bethesda MD 20892-5460 phone: 301.451.4683 FAX: 301.480.3503 e-mail: sm87j@nih.gov Disclaimer This letter represents the authors’ views and does not constitute an official position of the Department of Health and Human Services. References 1) Smith R. BMJ 2003;327:883-884 When To retract? 2) Hamed N Khan and RW Blamey. Endocrine treatment of physiological gynaecomastia. BMJ 2003; 327: 301-302 Competing interests: None declared |
|||