Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Climate of more publications
- Kasim Behranwala (29 July 2005)
-
Including correspondence in our systematic reviews
- David A Scott (2 August 2005)
-
A case for greater international representation on the editorial boards?
- sanju george (7 August 2005)
-
Research fraud & conflicts of interest joined at the hip
- Lynn Howard Ehrle (10 August 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Kasim Behranwala, Specialist Registrar W12 0HS
Send response to journal:
|
It is a very well written article. Though, I would like to point that in this day and age of presentations and publications 'Publish or Perish', people are pressured to publish to obtain a job or to ascend the heirarchy. In this pursuit, the quality of the research suffers. We also have an increased number of journals making it into the Pubmed without any controlling power exerting its influence. Obviously the referees chosen for these journals are not experts and it is easy for substandard manuscripts to obtain publication. It is a known fact that many of the published research is not reproducible which means manipulated data or statistical analysis. The survival or follow-up data from certain countries are to be viewed with skepticism as follow-up is not robust with people coming from different areas in a vast country. Responders by post is effectively very less than what is reported. Once a third grade manuscript is published, the authors are charged with false confidence which sets up a very bad cycle. Then there is a problem of some people who could be quite intimidating to get their names onto the authors list. There is no easy solution but a trend towards the idea 'Research does not reflect your intelligence and should not be counted as a point towards differentiation' would be more optimistic and bring about genuine research. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David A Scott, Senior Health Economist Fourth Hurdle Consulting, Holborn Tower, 137-144 High Holborn, London WC1V 6PL
Send response to journal:
|
Richard Smith (BMJ 2005;331:288-291) asks whether we should have a system of flagging dubious studies in databases. This is going to be challenging to adopt in practice, when different bodies use a plethora of search engines and often supplement these with hand searching, and is unlikely to be available any time soon. An interim approach of including correspondence in the search strategy is recommended by Sutton and El-Kadiki (http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.38399.495648.8F/DC2) in a correction to their meta-analysis. This increases the burden on researchers but in light of the events highlighted in the BMJ, would surely be a price worth paying and could be readily and immediately embraced. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
sanju george, specialist registrar in psychiatry Queen Elizabeth Psychiatric Hospital, B15 2QZ
Send response to journal:
|
A case for greater international representation on the editorial boards of journals? EDITOR – I wish to add to one of the points raised by the author (1). As a possible means of early detection of research fraud, prior to publication, Dr Smith states: ‘journal editors should seek at least one reviewer who is familiar with the local environment in which the research was conducted.’ Research, although similar in principle across cultural divide, can vary in its form and process. Although, the quality of research needs to be assessed by the same yardstick, irrespective of its origins (developing or developed country), there are cross-cultural subtleties that should not be ignored; hence, the value of local peer reviewers and may be even a greater international representation on the editorial boards (as editors are key to implementing peer review). In a study of international representation on the editorial and advisory boards of ten leading psychiatric journals, Saxena et al (2) noted astonishingly low numbers: 4 out of 530. Within this context, it would be interesting and reassuring for readers and potential authors to know how the BMJ fairs in this regard: international representation on its editorial and advisory boards, and the readiness with which ‘local’ peer reviewers are sought. Readers would also be interested in knowing how much it cost the BMJ to investigate the case of Dr Singh. In hindsight, is it fair to conclude that a more appropriate (local) peer review policy (often an outcome of an adequate international representation on the editorial board) would have proved more cost and time effective? Sanju George, Specialist Registrar in Psychiatry, sanju.george@talk21.com 1. Smith R. Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author. BMJ 2005; 288-291. 2. Saxena S, Levar I, Maulik P, Saraceno B. How international are the editorial boards of leading psychiatry journals? Lancet 2003; 361:609. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lynn Howard Ehrle, Senior Biomedical Policy Analyst, Organic Consumers Association(pro bono) 8888 Mayflower Dr., Plymouth, Michigan, 48170 USA
Send response to journal:
|
Richard Smith(BMJ 2005;331:288-291)describes numerous barriers editors face when confronted with research fraud and calls for the establishment of an international investigative body. Absent subpoena and enforcement powers, it would be a paper tiger. He notes, almost in passing, a proposal to put the culprit in the dock. In 1987, the eminent biochemist, Erwin Chargaff(interviewed by this medical writer on two occasions months before his death at 96 in 2002), implied this very procedure when he penned these words(Nature 1987;327:199-200). Only in the recent past, concurrently with the emergence of the new profession of ehticist, have certain direct applications of scientific research begun to be classi- fied as ethical or unethical- qualifications indicating inadequacies of the criminal code. Just a few of the most egregious cases taken before the bar, involving real jail time, could have the salutary effect of sharpening one's mindset, and the pencil, before intentionally falsifying data or plagiarising another's work, not to mention corporate-sponsored research that is distorted or withheld. There is a much more serious issue, though, that extends beyond the actions of an individual researcher and is seldom discussed. Increasingly, we find university presidents and medical leaders who accept positions on corporate boards of directors or, after lengthy medical careers, become officers of the corporation. Former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell has warned of the inherent danger of these entanglements, what I describe as "a Faustian pact" in a Rapid Response(BMJ, 15 Jan 2004), as follows. When these persons pass through the revolving door into the corporate sanctum sanctorum they adopt an ethic in which board room politics, interlocking directorates, personal friendships and substantial equity holdings make it impossible to dispassionately implement policy in the public interest. In fact, board members have a primary fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders, "in direct conflict with student and patient welfare and the overall mission of the university"(JAMA 2002;287:1398-99). These leaders send the wrong message to researchers who work at their institutions even as they assert these corporate ties can be "managed," a claim we dispute in another letter (David Egilman, L. Ehrle, JAMA 2003;289:3241). There is a systemic problem here, one that cannot be easily glossed over. These conflicts of interest must be seen as a root cause of fraudulent behavior- joined at the hip. Competing interests: None declared |
|||