So here's a question: should the BMJ repeat the NEJM's experiment and ban editorials and clinical reviews from authors with ties to industry?
The BMJ is in favour of things being evidence-based, yes? So I think the answer to that question is simple: if there is evidence that banning contributions from authors with ties to industry improves the quality of articles, then by all means go ahead and ban them.
On the other hand, if that evidence doesn't exist, then such a decision would be harder to justify, and would appear to be made more on ideological than rational grounds.
What does the evidence tell us?
Competing interests:
I run a company that has pharmaceutical companies as clients, so I guess that means I have industry ties.
Rapid Response:
Evidence-based decision?
So here's a question: should the BMJ repeat the NEJM's experiment and ban editorials and clinical reviews from authors with ties to industry?
The BMJ is in favour of things being evidence-based, yes? So I think the answer to that question is simple: if there is evidence that banning contributions from authors with ties to industry improves the quality of articles, then by all means go ahead and ban them.
On the other hand, if that evidence doesn't exist, then such a decision would be harder to justify, and would appear to be made more on ideological than rational grounds.
What does the evidence tell us?
Competing interests: I run a company that has pharmaceutical companies as clients, so I guess that means I have industry ties.