Underfund peer review?

[Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>]

"some of these models so underfund peer review or depend on 
volunteers so heavily that it is unlikely the resources are there 
to increase the rigor of review,"

I don't have all the figures but i would guess that Nutrition & 
Metabolism funds peer review at about the same level as all of 
the ADA publications.  If there is a relation between volunteers 
vs. payed reviewers in rigor, any unpaid reviewers at ADA would 
sensibly be unethical especially if there are funds available 
like, you know, from pharma firms. RF

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard D. Feinman, 
Professor of Biochemistry
(718) 871-1374
FAX: (718) 270-3316


"Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>
Sent by: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
05/15/06 08:56 PM
RE: Does BMC's business model conflict with Editorial   Independence?

If it were the case that the simple act of taking any money from 
a pharma firm made a researcher "a shill for the corporations," 
we could believe next to nothing published in journals. Richard 
Smith and Richard Horton like to argue that journals are 
"money-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry," a 
clever phrase and soundbite, but an insult to the majority of 
authors and editors who struggle mightily to uphold ethical 
standards.

There are ethical standards for the disclosure of conflicts such 
as those of the International Committee of Medical Journal 
Editors (http://www.icmje.org/#conflicts). Does disclosure fail 
at times? Of course. Eric Topol of the Cleveland Clinic is making 
a career of exposing the failures of disclosure and peer review 
for drugs like Vioxx. Still, the solution is not to throw up 
one's hands and say that everyone is tainted and no one can be 
believed. The solution is to make the peer review and editing 
process even more rigorous for drugs (as with the recent 
requirement for clinical trials to be entered in 
clinicaltrials.gov).

I certainly do not think that editors of OA journals can't in 
theory handle these conflicts as well as other journal editors. 
But they have two additional burdens: 1)  some of these models so 
underfund peer review or depend on volunteers so heavily that it 
is unlikely the resources are there to increase the rigor of 
review, and 2) the editor is put in the position of taking money 
from the sponsor of the paper he must decide to accept or reject. 
The OA system needs its own special set of ethical guidlines, 
which might include an outright ban on pharma advertising, or 
careful mechanisms for separating the editing and funding 
processes.

Peter Banks
Publisher


>>> Karl Bridges <Karl.Bridges@uvm.edu> 05/14/06 8:43 PM >>>

I don't know about journals, but I know in the normal publishing
business it is considered extremely unethical to make charges for
editorial work. You simply don't charge the authors for work that
needs to be done e.g. editing, production.  The only people who
would do this are vanity publishers. Money is supposed to flow
from the editors to the writers.  Personally, I think academic
writers should be charging journals for their writing rather than
simply giving it away to for profit publishers, but that's a
topic for another day.

The real problem here is that, once you start taking money from
outside sources e.g. drug companies you have compromised
completely your honesty and objectivity. You are no longer doing
objective scientific reason, but becoming a shill for the
corporations.  I don't disagree that people do have connections
with these organizations, but every (and I mean every) article
should have a full disclaimer of what connections (financial and
otherwise) that the writers and editors have.  Colleges and
universities should also require yearly statements of conflict of
interest that are publicly available. If I'm reading an article
praising a new drug I have a right to know whether the author has
a financial interest in promoting the product.