Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The CMA now faces a legitimation problem over its failure to explain
why it fired CMAJ editors. Thousands of medical professionals have signed
a petition to re-instate editors who have brought international
recognition to the CMAJ. There have been calls from leading medical and
science journals as well as national news papers to explain why the
editors were fired. Yet the CMA has offered scant and conflicting
information on the issue. (1) It has also lost an opportunity to put the
issue to rest, save face and restore confidence amongst its members, the
public and international journalistic community. The president of the CMA
has noted that the panel formed by the CMA to examine a future governance
framework for the CMAJ will not investigate circumstances surrounding the
editors being fired. (2) Clearly this leaves the issue unresolved. Nor
is the CMA bound by the panel’s recommendations as CMA officials have
indicated. Against this backdrop it is difficult not to see this
governance panel as window dressing. This might help to explain why the
bulk of the CMAJ’s editorial board and a number of interim editors
resigned. It might also help to explain why there has been a call from
the academic community to boycott the CMAJ as the CMA’s flagship sails
into uncharted waters with a damaged reputation and skeleton crew. (3)
There are now calls from the academic community to create a new general
medical journal in Canada but with unfettered and guaranteed editorial
independence that would better serve the public interest. (4) There is a
growing loss of confidence in CMA leadership. The crisis could have been
avoided.
1. M. Shuchman and D.A. Redelmeier. Perspective: Politics and
Independence. The Collapse of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. N
Engl J Med. 2006, Early release posted March 15, www.nejm.org,
doi:10.1056/NEJMp068056
The CMA’s Legitimation Crisis
The CMA now faces a legitimation problem over its failure to explain
why it fired CMAJ editors. Thousands of medical professionals have signed
a petition to re-instate editors who have brought international
recognition to the CMAJ. There have been calls from leading medical and
science journals as well as national news papers to explain why the
editors were fired. Yet the CMA has offered scant and conflicting
information on the issue. (1) It has also lost an opportunity to put the
issue to rest, save face and restore confidence amongst its members, the
public and international journalistic community. The president of the CMA
has noted that the panel formed by the CMA to examine a future governance
framework for the CMAJ will not investigate circumstances surrounding the
editors being fired. (2) Clearly this leaves the issue unresolved. Nor
is the CMA bound by the panel’s recommendations as CMA officials have
indicated. Against this backdrop it is difficult not to see this
governance panel as window dressing. This might help to explain why the
bulk of the CMAJ’s editorial board and a number of interim editors
resigned. It might also help to explain why there has been a call from
the academic community to boycott the CMAJ as the CMA’s flagship sails
into uncharted waters with a damaged reputation and skeleton crew. (3)
There are now calls from the academic community to create a new general
medical journal in Canada but with unfettered and guaranteed editorial
independence that would better serve the public interest. (4) There is a
growing loss of confidence in CMA leadership. The crisis could have been
avoided.
1. M. Shuchman and D.A. Redelmeier. Perspective: Politics and
Independence. The Collapse of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. N
Engl J Med. 2006, Early release posted March 15, www.nejm.org,
doi:10.1056/NEJMp068056
2. CBC interview with Dr. Dr. Ruth Collins-Nakai, As it Happens.
March 17,2006
http://www.cbc.ca/insite/AS_IT_HAPPENS_TORONTO/2006/3/17.html
3. D.Spurgeon. Most of CMAJ Editorial Board Resigns: BMJ:2006;332:687
(25 March) doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.687-a
4. P. Webster. Prescription for Canada: an unfettered medical
journal. Globe and Mail, March 25, 2006.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests