Rapid Responses to:

NEWS: David Spurgeon CMAJ editorial board members vent anger at lack of openness BMJ 2006; 332: 624-a [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Why only damage control, why not redeem yourself, CMA ?

Dr Ajai R. Singh   (21 March 2006)

Why only damage control, why not redeem yourself, CMA ? 21 March 2006
Dr Ajai R. Singh, Editor Mens Sana Monographs Send response to journal: Re: Why only damage control, why not redeem yourself, CMA ?	Damage control exercises by the CMA President are fine, and worth appreciating, given the circumstances in which she is placed. Promises of editorial independence, and reassurances to that effect are laudatory too. Changes in the Journal Oversight Committee, or bringing in an Interim Editor to manage the show, and appointing an Editor Emeritus, who commands respect having been an earlier editor at CAMJ, and is the founder of WAME (to hopefully quieten any criticism there), are understandable moves by a concerned executive wanting to move on and prevent further damage. The crucial point, however, still remains. There is no mention of reinstatement of the sacked editors. Why can that important decision not be taken, or a justified explanation for sacking the editors not be given? Because, all such exercises will not cut much ice, for the double standard is evident. While promising editorial freedom, it is precisely that editorial freedom which has been trampled upon in the sacking of the CAMJ editors. While asking people to move on and have trust in the bright future of the CAMJ, precisely those people who were ensuring it have been summarily sacked. With not a word of explanation. Why can the executive not be bold enough to rectify a wrong decision taken? Or explain how its action is right? That is the crux of the issue, and no amount of dilly-dallying, or skirting the issue, is going to help. The CMA is at an important cross road. If it decides to reinstate the editors, it will suddenly rise many fold in the eyes of the biomedical world. Contrary to what many may feel, or even they themselves may believe. If it decides to stick to its stand, it will be proved as pedestrian as many other Association heads and office bearers earlier have been proved to be. The crucial point is whether the CMA, its President, and Office bearers realize the great chance this event has given them to redeem themselves, and rise in the eyes of the whole medical community. No one, until today, has had the nerve to take such a courageous stand. I hope, and pray, they seize this opportunity. Ajai Singh 21 Mar 2006 Competing interests: None declared