Rapid Responses to:

EDITORIALS: Kamran Abbasi and Iona Heath Ethics review of research and audit BMJ 2005; 330: 431-432 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Open Access to Decision Making

susanne mccabe soostevens@hotmail.com   (27 February 2005)

Open Access to Decision Making 27 February 2005
susanne mccabe soostevens@hotmail.com, retired cf24 3pf Send response to journal: Re: Open Access to Decision Making	the BMJ has been in the forefront of consideration of ethical issues in research/audit; publication/use of others'information for many years. It could take a step further by now in supplying more detailed information, appropriately anonymised, to inform people about the type of decisions referred to in the article. Unless it is known what the problems are only a select few are aware of what the sticking points tend to be. It should be possible to give some data on:- eg.the number of submissions rejected and the reason, the number returned for further editing and the reason; the number referred for further discussion to Editors and the Ethics Committee and their reasoning; the number forwarded elsewhere for advice or further discussion with such as the Local Ethics Committee or Deans of Medical Schools; who has been involved in the decision making - how many members of the Editorial/Ethics team attended meetings; if informal discussions have taken place between Editors or members of the Ethics Committee,( re further information re Ethics Cttee on BMJ website) were discussions documented/shared with other members of the team. It is not, as the Editor, says the responsibility of Editors to 'punish' - they do not have the authority to do so, but to run an ethically and morally sound Journal. There is though the same wider responsibility we all have to be vigilant where unethical or immoral actions are compromising the standards currently expected by society - and to do this the wider society needs to be included and informed. (there is a responsiblity on everybody to comply with the GMC guidelines where failings in practice are occuring of course.) It is the responsibility of all in a mature society to be involved in ethical decisions especially where one group by nature of their work and position has access to information which may impact on society as well as individual lives. This group does then of course have a higher level of responsibility towards others. I would like to thank Hazim Timini for his response to my letter in PLoS Medicine, regarding the lack of information conveyed by COREC to the public of their rights to access to Annual Research Ethics Reports.Also to the Author of the Article in the PLoS in the first place, Eswar Krishnan,'Open Access to Trials Register'. Vol 2 Issue 2 Feb 2005. Hazim Timini (of Update Software Lts, contracted by DoH) states that Research and Development Departments at NHS Trusts in England, Scotland and Wales submit details of their NHS funded research projects to the National Research Register every three months. The DoH in England also uses the NRR to identify NHS funded randomised controlled trials in England. (Registered in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Register, ISRCTN http://controlled-trials.com/isrctn) The NRR includes electronic links from individual project records to the ISRCTN register. Access to the NRR is free and open to all at http://www.nrr.nhs.uk References: Public Open Library of Science (PLoS Medicine Issue 2) COREC website Competing interests: None declared