corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15367

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Goldstein J.
AMA Wades Into Flap Over JAMA Editors
The Wall Street Journal Blog 2009 Mar 30
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/30/ama-wades-into-flap-over-jama-editors/


Full text:

The flap continues over how JAMA editors handled allegations that a study author failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest. Readers who are just tuning in can catch up by reading this post, which lays out the fight between the editors and a professor who complained about the conflict; and this post explaining JAMA’s new policy that says allegations of undisclosed conflicts should remain confidential while the journal investigates.

The newest twist: The AMA, which owns JAMA but is not involved in day-to-day publication decisions, has asked its Journal Oversight Committee to look into the matter. Here’s the latest from the WSJ. Here’s a statement the AMA board chair put out Friday:

The American Medical Association is owner and publisher of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and its specialty Archives journals. While we are ultimately responsible for these publications, as most in the medical and journalism professions are aware, these journals are editorially independent of AMA. That means we do not review or interfere in what is printed in these journals.

Recently, concerns have been raised over how JAMA editors addressed a conflict of interest issue brought to light by Professor Jonathan Leo. As owner and publisher of JAMA, we take these concerns very seriously.

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.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963