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. Lawyer who had authored it.
On April 23, Stat Information’s Anil Oza broke his report that “Final week, a minimum of one scientific journal obtained a letter from a prime U.S. lawyer asking it to reply to alleged bias. Now, one of many world’s main medical journals, has obtained the same 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 current days by which the prosecutor requested six questions, largely about alleged bias within the determination to publish unspecified content material. The journal informed 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 evaluate and editorial processes to make sure the objectivity and reliability of the analysis we publish. We help 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 Occasions’s Teddy Rosenbluth adopted up with a extra in depth report, which included her quotes from Rubin. She wrote that “A federal prosecutor in Washington has contacted The New England Journal of Drugs, thought-about the world’s most prestigious medical journal, with questions that advised with out proof that it was biased in opposition to 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, “A minimum of three different journals have obtained related 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 numerous scientific debates’ and requested a sequence of accusatory questions on bias and the collection of analysis articles. Do they settle for submissions from scientists with ‘competing viewpoints’? What do they do if the authors whose work they revealed ‘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 scientific 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 function of funders within the growth of submitted articles. Martin requested a response from Mazzone by Might 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 present that it had obtained the letter and mentioned in an electronic mail that its attorneys had been reviewing it. The group famous that the letter’s content material ‘was posted on-line with out our information.’”
What’s extra, Fiore wrote, “The journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, the official journal of the American Faculty of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), additionally obtained the same letter. “Obstetrics and Gynecology has editorial independence from ACOG however shares our mission of enhancing outcomes for all individuals in want of obstetric and gynecologic care,” an ACOG spokesperson mentioned in an electronic mail. ‘We’re happy with the journal’s concentrate on scientific information and patient-centered and respectful, evidence-based care.’ Two different journals didn’t need to be named for the story. Together with NEJM, CHEST, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, there are actually a minimum of 5 medical journals which have obtained letters from the DOJ — and there are probably others. ‘It is probably that letters had been despatched to many extra journals,’ Reinhart informed MedPage At present. ‘CHEST‘s was merely the primary to leak.’”
