Policies, practices, and attitudes of north american medical journal editors
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
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.
- Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust, 1985.
- Altman LK. Presented at the meeting “The relationship between scientific journals and the lay press,” sponsored by the American Medical Association, Chicago, 1L, May 1989.
- Healy B. Women in science: from panes to ceilings. Science. 1992;255:1333. CrossRef
- Healy B. Women’s health, public welfare. JAMA. 1991;266:2984. CrossRef
- Angell M, Kassirer JP. The Ingelfinger rule revisited. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1371–3. CrossRef
- Altman LK. Errors prompt proposals to improve peer review at science journals. New York Times. 1989;Jun 6:B6.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Conflict of interest. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:646.
- Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung CM, et al. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. JAMA. 1994;272:108–13. CrossRef
- Weller AC. Editorial peer review in U.S. medical journals. JAMA. 1990;263:1344–7. CrossRef
- American College of Physicians. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals and Supplemental Statements from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Philadelphia: ACP, 1993.
- McNutt RA. Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–6. CrossRef
- Fisher M, Friedman S, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:143–6. CrossRef
- Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. JAMA. 1994;272:149–51. CrossRef
- Garfunkel JM. Ulshen MH, Hamrick HJ, Lawson EE. The effect of institutional prestige on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial decisions. JAMA. 1994;272:137–8. CrossRef
- Gilbert JR. Williams ES, Lundberg GD. Is there gender bias in JAMA’S peer review process? JAMA. 1994;272:139–42. CrossRef
- Kassirer JP. The next transformation in the delivery of health care. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:52–4. CrossRef
- Wilkes MS, Doblin B, Shapiro MF. Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journals: experts’ assessments. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:912–9.
- McGuire WJ. Attitudes and attitude change. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E (eds). Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House, 1985.
- Hays RD, Hagashi T, Stewart AL. A five item measure of socially desirable response set. Educ Psychol Meas. 1989;49:629–36. CrossRef
- Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Medical researcher and the media: attitudes toward public dissemination of research. JAMA. 1992;268:999–1003. CrossRef
- Policies, practices, and attitudes of north american medical journal editors
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 10, Issue 8 , pp 443-450
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- medical journals
- pharmaceutical advertisements
- peer review
- information dissemination
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. the Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine, Los Angeles
- 2. RAND, Santa Monica
- 4. the Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California