Rapid Responses to:

NEWS: Janice Hopkins Tanne JAMA’s new rule on whistleblowers creates controversy BMJ 2009; 338: b1352 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Is JAMA’s new rule really “a dangerous position”?

Nigel Dudley   (11 April 2009)

Is JAMA’s new rule really “a dangerous position”? 11 April 2009
Nigel Dudley, Consultant in Elderly / Stroke Medicine St James's University Hospital LEEDS LS9 7TF Send response to journal: Re: Is JAMA’s new rule really “a dangerous position”?	Is JAMA’s policy in relation to those who may raise concerns about selective disclosures or misleading information in a published article such “a dangerous position” as stated by the BMJ’s own editor in chief, Fiona Godlee? [1,2] Surely an even more dangerous position would be for a journal editor to turn a blind eye to selective disclosures or misleading information or alternatively to give an appearance of concern yet take no action or only take action within what others may consider to be an unacceptable time frame. The JAMA policy does not ban a person from raising concerns while JAMA is investigating. It states, “The person bringing the allegation will be specifically informed that he/she should not reveal this information to third parties or the media while the investigation is under way….”.[1] This use of “should” allows discretion on the part of the individual raising the concern; if the “new” policy was intended by JAMA to impose a ban the word used would have been “must” not “should”. That is an important distinction overlooked by many, perhaps including the BMJ. The JAMA policy is not altogether unreasonable if it had a time limit attached in relation to the period of requested silence during a fair investigation of concerns; the real question for journal editors should be how long is reasonable: five weeks, five months, fifteen months? The BMJ’s own standard here would appear to be set at something less than five months given the fact that it stepped in and published Professor Leo’s concerns. If the desirable investigation period is agreed to be less than five months, what should it be so as to account for matters such as complexity or ease of contact with authors? Medical journal editors should work together constructively to come up with a universal policy that is fair to both a journal and the person raising any concern about a journal’s potentially misleading or incorrect content. [1] DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Conflicts Over Conflicts of Interest. (JAMA published online March 20, 2009 www.jama.ama-assn.org/ ) [2] Tanne JH. JAMA’s new rule on whistleblowers’ silence during investigations creates controversy. BMJ 2009;338:b1352 Competing interests: None declared