Nobody-Affäre bringt JAMA-Herausgeber unter Druck
Die Herausgeber der renommierten Fachzeitschrift JAMA hatten kürzlich
für Aufsehen gesorgt. Sie hatten den Wissenschaftler Jonathan Leo als "Nobody and Nothing" beschimpft und nicht nur ihn, sondern auch seinen Arbeitgeber in beispielloser Weise unter Druck gesetzt. Leo hatte zuvor öffentlich auf inhaltliche Unstimmigkeiten und verschleierte Interessenkonflikte in einem pharmafreundlich ausgefallenen JAMA-Artikel hingewiesen.Die JAMA-Herausgeber sahen sich zunächst gezwungen, in einem
Online-Editorial ihr Verhalten wortreich zu rechtfertigen und zu relativieren. In einer pointierten Stellungnahme schildert und bewertet der "Nobody" daraufhin die Vorgänge:
The implications of the JAMA's reaction to our letter are significant. [...] In the past, I have criticized direct-to-consumer advertising of psychiatric medications, which is not helpful to Big Pharma. However, I have never been telephoned or threatened by representatives from Big Pharma. In contrast to my experience with JAMA, any exchanges have been civil and appropriate.
[...]
What began as a short (and potentially obscure) letter about undisclosed COI has now led to questions about the limits of institutional authority in the medical publishing industry, the extent of academic freedom, and even the role of the First Amendment.
[...]
What began as a short (and potentially obscure) letter about undisclosed COI has now led to questions about the limits of institutional authority in the medical publishing industry, the extent of academic freedom, and even the role of the First Amendment.
Am Mittwoch hatte die pharmakritische Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) in einem offenen Brief an die American Medical Association (AMA) als Konsequenz aus den Vorgängen die sofortige Suspendierung der beiden beteiligten Herausgeber und eine Entschuldigung gegenüber Jonathan Leo gefordert. Die AMA kündigte daraufhin am Freitag an, die Vorwürfe formell untersuchen zu wollen:
In accordance with the Editorial Governance Plan for JAMA, this entire matter is being formally referred to the Journal Oversight Committee (JOC). The AMA is requesting that the JOC examine the concerns related to Professor Leo’s inquiry and upon completion present its findings to the AMA Board of Trustees. The AMA Board will give careful consideration to whatever is reported to it by the JOC.
[Wissenschaft]
| Autor: hockeystick 2009-03-30 Link (3 Kommentare) Ihr Kommentar |
hockeystick 2009-03-30
>> Kommentieren
hockeystick 2009-03-31
nur Gott, über Gott stehen nur JAMA-Herausgeber.>> Kommentieren
strappato 2009-04-04
Such public comment “potentially damages JAMA’s reputation,” editors wrote.
“Leo also was informed that, if his actions represented his apparent lack of confidence in and regard for JAMA, he certainly should not plan to submit future manuscripts or letters for publication,” said the editorial, signed by Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis, the journal’s editor in chief, and Dr. Phil B. Fontanarosa, its executive deputy editor.
“Leo also was informed that, if his actions represented his apparent lack of confidence in and regard for JAMA, he certainly should not plan to submit future manuscripts or letters for publication,” said the editorial, signed by Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis, the journal’s editor in chief, and Dr. Phil B. Fontanarosa, its executive deputy editor.
Schmuddelkind eben.
>> Kommentieren
