Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Editorials

Reed Elsevier's arms trade

BMJ 2007; 334 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39153.580023.80 (Published 15 March 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;334:547

Rapid Response:

Encouraging the sale of arms is unacceptable

I was pleased to read the editorial by Young and Godlee which
highlights the unacceptable position of the worlds largest science
publishing company, Reed Elsevier, on the international sale of arms.
Frankly, the more people who know about about this situation the better,
as Reed Elsevier must not be allowed to continue to propogate violence in
this way. The respondents to this editorial who say that boycotting Reed
Elsevier journals, including The Lancet, will lead to the closure of The
Lancet are wrong. The Lancet receives massive numbers of submissions each
year, far more than it can publish, and the lack of one or two papers with
high reprint values will not damage the journal. However, a clear
demonstration to Reed Elsevier that their policy on arms is directly
resulting in a loss of profit may tip the balance and encourage the
company to stop encouraging the sale of arms. In this way, the BMJ
editorial, and the boycott it calls for, will help The Lancet in its
stance against Reed Elsevier on this issue. I also wonder if the few
respondents who have criticised the BMJ editorial really have no conflict
of interest to declare. Have they ever published in The Lancet, and do
they intend to publish in that journal in the future?

Competing interests:
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

21 March 2007
Jack J Marsden
Medical Social Scientist
Cardiff CF10 1EE