Editorial Independence and Unraveling the Public Good
The CMAs dismissal of its top two CMAJ editors has not only been a
blow to editorial independence but also to the public good. As noted,
tensions between owners of a medical journal and editors are to be
expected and can be creative. (1) This can also be applied to the CMA
membership which is diverse. It does not hold homogenous views on a range
of health issues. Nor does the Canadian public which the CMA has a
mandate to serve. Tensions between views on important issues can spark
fruitful discussion and debate in an open public academic forum such as
the CMAJ which is also a venue for public policy formulation and
reflection. Against a backdrop of professional and public diversity, it is
essential that editorial independence be maintained through good
governance practices in order to promote open discussion and debate that
serves the public interest.
A panel has been struck by the CMA that is charged to design a new
governance structure for the CMAJ and it is to be chaired by a retired
Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court. (2) Prima facie this should
be welcomed especially in light of three CMAJ editors having now resigned
over concerns about editorial independence and its possible future
politicization.(3) But it remains to be seen what the terms and limits of
this panel will be and whether it will address the reasons why the editors
were fired. This is an issue that seeks resolve and has been heightened
by a groundswell of support from within the medical community to re-
instate the fired editors. The CMA needs to find the courage to address
the issue why the editors were fired in a publicly open and transparent
forum in order to serve its membership responsibly and to prevent its role
as a steward of the public good from further unraveling.
Rapid Response:
Editorial Independence and Unraveling the Public Good
The CMAs dismissal of its top two CMAJ editors has not only been a
blow to editorial independence but also to the public good. As noted,
tensions between owners of a medical journal and editors are to be
expected and can be creative. (1) This can also be applied to the CMA
membership which is diverse. It does not hold homogenous views on a range
of health issues. Nor does the Canadian public which the CMA has a
mandate to serve. Tensions between views on important issues can spark
fruitful discussion and debate in an open public academic forum such as
the CMAJ which is also a venue for public policy formulation and
reflection. Against a backdrop of professional and public diversity, it is
essential that editorial independence be maintained through good
governance practices in order to promote open discussion and debate that
serves the public interest.
A panel has been struck by the CMA that is charged to design a new
governance structure for the CMAJ and it is to be chaired by a retired
Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court. (2) Prima facie this should
be welcomed especially in light of three CMAJ editors having now resigned
over concerns about editorial independence and its possible future
politicization.(3) But it remains to be seen what the terms and limits of
this panel will be and whether it will address the reasons why the editors
were fired. This is an issue that seeks resolve and has been heightened
by a groundswell of support from within the medical community to re-
instate the fired editors. The CMA needs to find the courage to address
the issue why the editors were fired in a publicly open and transparent
forum in order to serve its membership responsibly and to prevent its role
as a steward of the public good from further unraveling.
1. Fiona Godlee. A big mistake BMJ 2006; 332
2. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.060294v2
3 Doug Payne. Editorial Revolt Continues at the CMAJ, The
Scientist, March 9, 2006.
http://proxy.bib.uottawa.ca:2755/news/display/23220/
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests