Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Responsible Independant Journalism
- Bill D. Misner (7 August 2004)
-
Facts Wrong, Accusations Reckless in Sackett Letter
- Jeffrey M. Drazen (26 August 2004)
-
Deep Disappointment
- Catherine DeAngelis (26 August 2004)
-
A response from Irish Lake
- David L. Sackett (31 August 2004)
-
Apology
- David L. Sackett (1 September 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Bill D. Misner, Director R & D EMG
Send response to journal:
|
When a opinion is expressed, personal bias may permeate the expression potentially tainting content. However, when an opinion is presented as a hypothesis then rationally supported, quantified, and qualified in numerical fashion, it should be seriously weighed and measured for journal publication. The opinion with bias may be published no matter how absurd, no matter whose powerful toes it steps on, and if so, it should be segregated from well-supported deduced conclusions. If the editor-in-charge is, in fact, in charge, the quality of the publication may depend on the freedom given his office and the degree to which the publication segregates opinion from supported conclusion. This is called responsible independant journalism, one that filters fiction from fact, but provides a vehicle for both. Bill Misner Ph.D. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jeffrey M. Drazen, Editor-in-Chief New England Journal of Medicine
Send response to journal:
|
In his letter on an editorial oversight committee for the BMJ (August 7 issue), Dr. Sackett makes patently false statements about the New England Journal of Medicine and the Massachusetts Medical Society. The society has never during my tenure or that of my predecessors suggested accepting or declining a paper for any reason, let alone a commercial one. The Journal's editors have complete editorial independence. The statements made by Sackett must be corrected to set the record straight; an apology is due to the Journal and the Massachusetts Medical Society. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Catherine DeAngelis, editor-in-chief of JAMA 505 n. State St , Chicago, IL 60610
Send response to journal:
|
I am deeply disappointed to read David Scakett's smear of JAMA, especially in contrast with his invaluable support during and after a difficult, but ultimately invigorating, episode of JAMA's long and proud history of editorial independence. Moreover, I am shocked that BMJ would publish so baseless a defamation of JAMA, whose high regard has been so courageously earned. These assertions are particularily disappointing coming from a member of BMJ's editorial board whose previous reputation has been to promote evidence in medicine. In fact, despite Sackett's allegations, there has been no suppression of JAMA's papers or influence on editorial decisions by the American Medical Association (AMA) or by advertisers. The reputation of JAMA speaks for itself, as defined not only by the quality and quantity of manuscripts received, but also by high impact factor and worldwide readership. JAMA, the AMA and your readers deserve an explanation and an apology. Competing interests: I am editor-in-chief of JAMA |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David L. Sackett, Director Trout Center, RR1. Markdale, Ontario, Canada, N0C 1H0
Send response to journal:
|
As founding editor of one journal, and a member of the Advisory or Editorial Boards of four others, I’m ever more convinced of the absolute necessity for protecting editorial freedom. And, given my loyalty to my journals, I sympathize with Dr. Drazen’s and Dr DeAngelis’s vigorous disagreements with my opinion that their parent medical associations interfered with theirs. For clarification, my criticism of the NEJM is not about their accepting or rejecting papers from me or anybody else, and I cheerfully apologize to Dr. Drazen and his predecessors if it appeared otherwise. Might I suggest that interested readers examine the evidence in the public record and form their own opinions about what went on at these journals? Myriad reports document it, and one of several useful starting points is an article titled: “NEJM Editor’s Resignation Illustrates A Common Conflict.” (1) These sad events render the protection of editorial freedom at the BMJ imperative. (1) http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1999/08/03_nejm.html Competing interests: Already on your website. In addition, I was the founding Editor of Evidence-Based Medicine and sit on the Adfisory or Editorial Boards of ACP Journal Club, the BMJ, Clinical Trials, and the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David L. Sackett, Director, Trout Centre at Irish Lake RR 1, Markdale, ON, Canada, N0C1H0
Send response to journal:
|
In my zeal to protect editorial freedom at the BMJ, and profoundly troubled over the fates of George Lundberg at JAMA and Jerome Kassirer at NEJM, I shot from the hip in my original letter to the BMJ (1). In doing so I made a dumb mistake. I lack evidence that parent societies and advertisers suppress the publication of articles they don’t like at these journals. I withdraw this assertion, and apologize to Drs de Angelis and Drazen, their respective journals and medical societies, and everybody else for my error. Competing interests: Competing interests: Already on your website. In addition, I was the founding Editor of Evidence-Based Medicine and sit on the Adfisory or Editorial Boards of ACP Journal Club, the BMJ, Clinical Trials, and the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. |
|||