Within the wake of the receipt of a letter seeming to threaten the editorial independence of The New England Journal of Drugs, the NEJM’s editor-in-chief has responded to the Interim U.S. Legal professional who had authored it.
On April 23, Stat Information’s Anil Oza broke his report that “Final week, at the very least one scientific journal obtained a letter from a high U.S. lawyer asking it to reply to alleged bias. Now, one of many world’s main medical journals, has obtained an analogous inquiry as effectively. The New England Journal of Drugs’s editor in chief, Eric Rubin [M.D., Ph.D.], obtained a letter from the interim U.S. lawyer for the District of Columbia, Edward R. Martin Jr. in latest days by which the prosecutor requested six questions, largely about alleged bias within the resolution to publish unspecified content material. The journal advised STAT it responded by affirming its dedication to evidence-based suggestions and editorial independence.”
Oza quoted Dr. Rubin as writing to Martin that, “as working towards physicians, our editors acknowledge our duty to medical doctors and sufferers. We use rigorous peer assessment and editorial processes to make sure the objectivity and reliability of the analysis we publish. We assist the independence of medical journals and their First Modification rights to free expression. The Journal actively fosters scholarly scientific dialogue and stays steadfast in its dedication to supporting authors, readers, and sufferers.”
On April 25, the New York Instances’s Teddy Rosenbluth adopted up with a extra intensive report, which included her quotes from Rubin. She wrote that “A federal prosecutor in Washington has contacted The New England Journal of Drugs, thought of the world’s most prestigious medical journal, with questions that recommended with out proof that it was biased towards sure views and influenced by exterior pressures. Dr. Eric Rubin, the editor in chief of N.E.J.M., described the letter as ‘vaguely threatening,’ Rosenbluth wrote, following an interview with the editor.
Additional, Rosenbluth reported, “No less than three different journals have obtained comparable letters from Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. lawyer in Washington. Mr. Martin has been criticized for utilizing his workplace to focus on opponents of the administration. His letters accused the publications of being ‘partisans in varied scientific debates’ and requested a sequence of accusatory questions on bias and the choice of analysis articles. Do they settle for submissions from scientists with ‘competing viewpoints’? What do they do if the authors whose work they printed ‘might have misled their readers”? Are they clear about affect from “supporters, funders, advertisers and others’?
The New England Journal is outwardly considered one of a number of medical journals which have obtained s letters from Martin that concerned a menacing tone. MedPageToday’s Kristina Fiore wrote on April 24 that, “In his letter to CHEST Editor-in-Chief Peter Mazzone, M.D., M.P.H., of the Cleveland Clinic, Martin requested 5 questions, together with about how the journal handles misinformation, competing viewpoints, and the way it assesses the position of funders within the improvement of submitted articles. Martin requested a response from Mazzone by Could 2. The letter to CHEST was dated April 14 and was initially posted on Xopens in a brand new tab or window by Eric Reinhart, MD, of Chicago.”
Additional, Fiore wrote, “Mazzone didn’t return a request for remark, however the American Faculty of Chest Physicians, which publishes CHEST, confirmed to MedPage At this time that it had obtained the letter and mentioned in an e mail that its attorneys have been reviewing it. The group famous that the letter’s content material ‘was posted on-line with out our data.’”
What’s extra, Fiore wrote, “The journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, the official journal of the American Faculty of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), additionally obtained an analogous letter. “Obstetrics and Gynecology has editorial independence from ACOG however shares our mission of bettering outcomes for all folks in want of obstetric and gynecologic care,” an ACOG spokesperson mentioned in an e mail. ‘We’re happy with the journal’s give attention to scientific information and patient-centered and respectful, evidence-based care.’ Two different journals didn’t wish to be named for the story. Together with NEJM, CHEST, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, there at the moment are at the very least 5 medical journals which have obtained letters from the DOJ — and there are doubtless others. ‘It is doubtless that letters have been despatched to many extra journals,’ Reinhart advised MedPage At this time. ‘CHEST’s was merely the primary to leak.’”
Source link
