Time for medical journals to disentangle from drug companies
We do not share Richard Smith's belief that "advertising in a journal
will have only a small influence on the average doctor" or that "you can
place greater trust in a journal that carries advertising than one that
does not."[1] In 2003, drug companies spent US$448 million on advertising
in medical journals,[2] and the return on investment (the average increase
in revenues per incremental dollar spent in any given month) was
US$5.00.[3] Companies spent such enormous sums pitching their products at
doctors because they get the results they want: advertising increases
prescriptions for targeted drugs.[4]
The BMJ has repeatedly called for doctors and drug companies to
disentangle,[5] and yet it continues to seek revenue from drug companies
for its financial sustainability. As for all businesses, medical journals
are wise to seek multiple revenue streams. But the risk of overdependence
on the vagaries of advertising revenue is illustrated by BMJ-USA, which
folded because "it has fallen victim to the widespread downturn in US
pharmaceutical advertising and has become financially unsustainable for
the BMJ Publishing Group."[6]
Richard argues that if the BMJ abandoned drug advertising, it would
be forced to start charging readers to access the original research
papers. But he forgets to mention one increasingly important avenue of
funding—publication charges paid by research funders to cover the costs of
publication. Funders wish to make the final reports of the research they
fund universally accessible and are increasingly supportive of covering
such costs. The Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s largest biomedical
research charities, now makes it a condition of receiving a grant that the
final report is made freely available—and the trust will cover publication
costs.[7]
References
1. Smith R. Should medical journals carry drug advertising? BMJ
2007;335:74 (14 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.39259.472998.AD
Competing interests:
PLoS Medicine bans adverts for drugs and devices. The journal is funded through multiple revenue streams, including publication charges, foundation support, institutional membership, and non-pharmaceutical advertising. Richard Smith is on PLoS’ Board of Directors. Before joining PLoS Medicine, GY was an assistant editor at the BMJ.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
24 July 2007
Gavin M Yamey
Senior Editor, PLoS Medicine
Virginia Barbour, Paul Chinnock, Barbara Cohen, Larry Peiperl, Emma Veitch
Public Library of Science, 185 Berry Street, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94107
Rapid Response:
Time for medical journals to disentangle from drug companies
We do not share Richard Smith's belief that "advertising in a journal
will have only a small influence on the average doctor" or that "you can
place greater trust in a journal that carries advertising than one that
does not."[1] In 2003, drug companies spent US$448 million on advertising
in medical journals,[2] and the return on investment (the average increase
in revenues per incremental dollar spent in any given month) was
US$5.00.[3] Companies spent such enormous sums pitching their products at
doctors because they get the results they want: advertising increases
prescriptions for targeted drugs.[4]
The BMJ has repeatedly called for doctors and drug companies to
disentangle,[5] and yet it continues to seek revenue from drug companies
for its financial sustainability. As for all businesses, medical journals
are wise to seek multiple revenue streams. But the risk of overdependence
on the vagaries of advertising revenue is illustrated by BMJ-USA, which
folded because "it has fallen victim to the widespread downturn in US
pharmaceutical advertising and has become financially unsustainable for
the BMJ Publishing Group."[6]
Richard argues that if the BMJ abandoned drug advertising, it would
be forced to start charging readers to access the original research
papers. But he forgets to mention one increasingly important avenue of
funding—publication charges paid by research funders to cover the costs of
publication. Funders wish to make the final reports of the research they
fund universally accessible and are increasingly supportive of covering
such costs. The Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s largest biomedical
research charities, now makes it a condition of receiving a grant that the
final report is made freely available—and the trust will cover publication
costs.[7]
References
1. Smith R. Should medical journals carry drug advertising? BMJ
2007;335:74 (14 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.39259.472998.AD
2. IMS Health, Integrated Promotional Services, CMR. (2004) Top-line
industry data. Fairfield (Connecticut): IMS Health. Available:
http://www.imshealth.com/ims/portal/front/articleC/0,2777,6599_44304752_....
3. http://www.rxpromoroi.org/rapp/index.html
4. Wang TJ, Ausiello JC, Stafford RS (1999) Trends in
antihypertensive drug advertising, 1985–1996. Circulation 99:2055–2057.
5. Abbasi K, Smith R. No more free lunches. BMJ. 2003 May
31;326(7400):1155-6.
6. Kamerow D, Godlee F (2005) BMJ USA is ending. BMJ 331:e394 DOI:
10.1136/bmj.331.7530.E394.
7. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002766.html
Competing interests:
PLoS Medicine bans adverts for drugs and devices. The journal is funded through multiple revenue streams, including publication charges, foundation support, institutional membership, and non-pharmaceutical advertising. Richard Smith is on PLoS’ Board of Directors. Before joining PLoS Medicine, GY was an assistant editor at the BMJ.
Competing interests: No competing interests