Policies, practices, and attitudes of north american medical journal editors

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe U.S. and Canadian medical journals, their editors, and policies that affect the dissemination of medical information. DESIGN: Mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: Senior editors of all 269 leading medical journals published at least quarterly in the United States and Canada, of whom 221 (82%) responded. MAIN MEASURES: The questionnaire asked about characteristics of journal editors and their journals and about journals' policies toward peer review, conflicts of interest, pre-publication discussions with the press, and pharmaceutical advertisements. RESULTS: The editors were overwhelmingly men (96%), middle-aged (mean age 61 years), and trained as physicians (82%). Although 98% claimed that their journals were "peer-reviewed," the editors differed in how they defined a "peer" and in the number of peers they deemed optimal for review. Sixty-three percent thought journals should check on reviewers' potential conflicts of interest, but only a minority supported masking authors' names and affiliations (46%), checking reviewers' financial conflicts of interest (40%), or revealing reviewers' names to authors (8%). The respondents advocated discussion of scientific findings with the press (84%), but only in accord with the Ingelfinger rule, i.e., after publication of the article (77%). Fifty-seven percent of the editors agreed that journals have a responsibility to ensure the truthfulness of pharmaceutical advertisements, and 40% favored subjecting advertisements to the same rigorous peer review as scientific articles. CONCLUSIONS: The responding editors were relatively homogeneous demographically and professionally, and they tended to support the editorial status quo. There was little sentiment in favor of tampering with the current peer-review system (however defined) or the Ingelfinger rule, but a surprisingly large percentage of the respondents favored more stringent review of drug advertisements.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)443-450
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume10
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1995

Fingerprint

Conflict of Interest
Peer Review
Names
Publications
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Information Dissemination
Canada
Physicians
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • editors
  • information dissemination
  • medical journals
  • peer review
  • pharmaceutical advertisements
  • publishing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

@article{71c3536e38ef440ebb617b3f118d9c49,
title = "Policies, practices, and attitudes of north american medical journal editors",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To describe U.S. and Canadian medical journals, their editors, and policies that affect the dissemination of medical information. DESIGN: Mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: Senior editors of all 269 leading medical journals published at least quarterly in the United States and Canada, of whom 221 (82{\%}) responded. MAIN MEASURES: The questionnaire asked about characteristics of journal editors and their journals and about journals' policies toward peer review, conflicts of interest, pre-publication discussions with the press, and pharmaceutical advertisements. RESULTS: The editors were overwhelmingly men (96{\%}), middle-aged (mean age 61 years), and trained as physicians (82{\%}). Although 98{\%} claimed that their journals were {"}peer-reviewed,{"} the editors differed in how they defined a {"}peer{"} and in the number of peers they deemed optimal for review. Sixty-three percent thought journals should check on reviewers' potential conflicts of interest, but only a minority supported masking authors' names and affiliations (46{\%}), checking reviewers' financial conflicts of interest (40{\%}), or revealing reviewers' names to authors (8{\%}). The respondents advocated discussion of scientific findings with the press (84{\%}), but only in accord with the Ingelfinger rule, i.e., after publication of the article (77{\%}). Fifty-seven percent of the editors agreed that journals have a responsibility to ensure the truthfulness of pharmaceutical advertisements, and 40{\%} favored subjecting advertisements to the same rigorous peer review as scientific articles. CONCLUSIONS: The responding editors were relatively homogeneous demographically and professionally, and they tended to support the editorial status quo. There was little sentiment in favor of tampering with the current peer-review system (however defined) or the Ingelfinger rule, but a surprisingly large percentage of the respondents favored more stringent review of drug advertisements.",
keywords = "editors, information dissemination, medical journals, peer review, pharmaceutical advertisements, publishing",
author = "Wilkes, {Michael S} and Kravitz, {Richard L}",
year = "1995",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1007/BF02599916",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "443--450",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Policies, practices, and attitudes of north american medical journal editors

AU - Wilkes, Michael S

AU - Kravitz, Richard L

PY - 1995/8

Y1 - 1995/8

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To describe U.S. and Canadian medical journals, their editors, and policies that affect the dissemination of medical information. DESIGN: Mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: Senior editors of all 269 leading medical journals published at least quarterly in the United States and Canada, of whom 221 (82%) responded. MAIN MEASURES: The questionnaire asked about characteristics of journal editors and their journals and about journals' policies toward peer review, conflicts of interest, pre-publication discussions with the press, and pharmaceutical advertisements. RESULTS: The editors were overwhelmingly men (96%), middle-aged (mean age 61 years), and trained as physicians (82%). Although 98% claimed that their journals were "peer-reviewed," the editors differed in how they defined a "peer" and in the number of peers they deemed optimal for review. Sixty-three percent thought journals should check on reviewers' potential conflicts of interest, but only a minority supported masking authors' names and affiliations (46%), checking reviewers' financial conflicts of interest (40%), or revealing reviewers' names to authors (8%). The respondents advocated discussion of scientific findings with the press (84%), but only in accord with the Ingelfinger rule, i.e., after publication of the article (77%). Fifty-seven percent of the editors agreed that journals have a responsibility to ensure the truthfulness of pharmaceutical advertisements, and 40% favored subjecting advertisements to the same rigorous peer review as scientific articles. CONCLUSIONS: The responding editors were relatively homogeneous demographically and professionally, and they tended to support the editorial status quo. There was little sentiment in favor of tampering with the current peer-review system (however defined) or the Ingelfinger rule, but a surprisingly large percentage of the respondents favored more stringent review of drug advertisements.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To describe U.S. and Canadian medical journals, their editors, and policies that affect the dissemination of medical information. DESIGN: Mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: Senior editors of all 269 leading medical journals published at least quarterly in the United States and Canada, of whom 221 (82%) responded. MAIN MEASURES: The questionnaire asked about characteristics of journal editors and their journals and about journals' policies toward peer review, conflicts of interest, pre-publication discussions with the press, and pharmaceutical advertisements. RESULTS: The editors were overwhelmingly men (96%), middle-aged (mean age 61 years), and trained as physicians (82%). Although 98% claimed that their journals were "peer-reviewed," the editors differed in how they defined a "peer" and in the number of peers they deemed optimal for review. Sixty-three percent thought journals should check on reviewers' potential conflicts of interest, but only a minority supported masking authors' names and affiliations (46%), checking reviewers' financial conflicts of interest (40%), or revealing reviewers' names to authors (8%). The respondents advocated discussion of scientific findings with the press (84%), but only in accord with the Ingelfinger rule, i.e., after publication of the article (77%). Fifty-seven percent of the editors agreed that journals have a responsibility to ensure the truthfulness of pharmaceutical advertisements, and 40% favored subjecting advertisements to the same rigorous peer review as scientific articles. CONCLUSIONS: The responding editors were relatively homogeneous demographically and professionally, and they tended to support the editorial status quo. There was little sentiment in favor of tampering with the current peer-review system (however defined) or the Ingelfinger rule, but a surprisingly large percentage of the respondents favored more stringent review of drug advertisements.

KW - editors

KW - information dissemination

KW - medical journals

KW - peer review

KW - pharmaceutical advertisements

KW - publishing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029113858&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029113858&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF02599916

DO - 10.1007/BF02599916

M3 - Article

C2 - 7472701

AN - SCOPUS:0029113858

VL - 10

SP - 443

EP - 450

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 8

ER -