Revealing the faults in medical journals



Medical journals hold an exalted position in medicine, but have many shortcomings. This perspective reviews some of the shortcomings of medical journals which are primarily related to inexperience, bias, and commercialism. The issues discussed include the uncertain mission of the traditional medical journal in the modern digital age, the inherent inexperience of voluntary editorial boards, the weaknesses and capricious nature of decisions made by the peer-review process, the uneven value of most journal articles, the bias in what gets submitted and published in journals, the misunderstanding about the criteria for authorship, the misunderstanding of the need for ethical review board approval of studies, the misunderstanding of the need for informed consent for research from patients and ethical review boards, the various sources of assistance to editors and authors in dealing with the many ethical issues arising in the publication process, the commercialization and manipulation of medical journals by industry, the prevalent and complex financial entanglements of authors with industry, and the imperfect impact factor, which has the potential to be abused. The perspective concludes with theorization of the role of medical journals in the future. Readers need to scrutinize data in the literature carefully and interpret the discussions and conclusions critically, as there are biases in what is published in medical journals.


medical journals commercialism bias scientific merit 



impact factor


Web of Science




  1. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) (2007) The Scientific Basis of Influence and Reciprocity: a Symposium; 2007 Jun 12; Washington, DC. AAMCGoogle Scholar
  2. Angell M (2008) Industry-sponsored clinical research: a broken system. JAMA 300: 1069-1071CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E et al (1997) The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ 314: 1009-1012PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bressler NM, Liesegang TJ, Schachat AP et al (2004) Advantages and potential dangers of presentation before publication: third in a series on editorship. Arch Ophthalmol 122: 1045-1048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2004) A code of conduct for editors of biomedical journals. Available via Accessed 2005 Aug 22
  6. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM et al (2001) Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet 358: 854-856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. DeAngelis C (2006) The influence of money on medical science. JAMA 296: 996-998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 351: 1250-1251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and the risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263: 1385-1389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickersin K, Min YI (1993) Publication bias: the problem that won’t go away. Ann NY Acad Sci 703: 135-146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Editorship Series in Ophthalmology. Available via Accessed 27 Feb 2009
  12. Egger M, Bartlett C, Juni P (2001) Are randomized controlled trials in the BMJ different?. BMJ 323: 1253-1254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fonanarosa PB et al (1998) Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peerreviewed medical journals. JAMA 280: 222-224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis DC (2005) Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA 294: 110-111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeman WR (2005) Control of data, authorship, and responsibility for clinical trials publications. Ophthalmology 112: 1485-1486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Godlee F (2004) Dealing with editorial misconduct. BMJ 329: 1301-1302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Godlee F, Jefferson T (eds) (2003) Peer review in health sciences, 2nd edn. BMJ Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Gottlieb S (2002) Congress criticizes drugs industry for misleading advertising. BMJ 325: 1379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Horton R (2002) The hidden research paper. JAMA 287: 2775-2778CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Institute of Medicine (2001) Crossing the quality chasm. A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, The National Academies. Available via Accessed 17 Feb 2009
  21. Institute of Medicine (2002) Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington: National Academy of Sciences. Available via Accessed 27 Feb 2009
  22. Institute of Medicine (2009) Beyond the HIPAA privacy rule: Enhancing privacy, improving Health through research. Washington. The National Academies. Available via Accessed 27 Feb 2009
  23. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PloS Med 2:e124Google Scholar
  24. Jabs DA (2005) Improving the reporting of clinical case series. Am J Ophthalmol 139: 900-905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B (2002) Association between competing interests and authors-conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published by the BMJ. BMJ 325: 249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Levin LA, Gottlieb JL, Beck RW et al (2005) Registration of clinical trials. Arch Ophthalmol 123: 1263-1264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B et al (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systemic review. BMJ 326: 1167-1170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lichter PR (2008) Debunking myths in physician-industry conflicts of interest. Am J Ophthalmol 146: 159-171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Liesegang TJ (2007a) Institutional review boards and new patient privacy issues in publication. Indian J Ophthalmol 55: 169-171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Liesegang TJ (2007b) The meaning and need for informed consent in research. Indian J Ophthalmol 55: 1-3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Liesegang TJ (2007c) Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Physician Learning 2.0. Ophthalmology 114: 1801-1083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Liesegang TJ (2008) Commercialism, loss of professionalism, and the effect on journals. Arch Ophthalmol 126: 1292-1295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Liesegang TJ, Albert DM, Schachat AP (2008) How to ensure our readers-trust: the proper attribution of authors and contributors. Am J Ophthalmol 146: 337-340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Liesegang TJ, Albert DM, Schachat AP (2008) Not for your eyes: information concealed through publication bias. Am J Ophthalmol 146: 638-640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Liesegang TJ, Schachat AP, Albert DM (2005a) Pharmaceutical companies and ophthalmic research. Ophthalmology 112: 363-365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Liesegang TJ, Schachat AP, Albert DM (2005b) The Open Access initiative in scientific and biomedical publishing: Fourth in the series on editorship. Am J Ophthalmol 139: 156-167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Liesegang TJ, Shaikh M, Crook JE (2007) The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. Am J Ophthalmol 143: 551-560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lock S (1991) A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine, 3rd edn. British Medical Journal, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D et al (2001) Publication bias in editorial decision making. BMJ 323: 2825-2828Google Scholar
  40. Pich J, Came X, Amaiz JA et al (2003) Role of research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results. Lancet 361: 1015-1016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Relman AS (1981) The Ingelfinger rule. N Engl J Med 305: 824-826PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rennie D (1986) Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review. JAMA 256: 2391-2392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Rennie D (1997) Thyroid storm. JAMA 277: 1238-1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L (1997) When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA 278: 579-585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S et al (2004) Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 328: 673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott-Lichter D and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors (2006) CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Reston,Va: CSE. Available via Accessed 27 Feb 2009
  47. Shapiro DW, Wenger WS, Shapiro MF (1994) The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA 271: 438-442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314: 498-402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Seglen PO (1994) Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. J Am Soc Inf Sci 45: 1-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith R (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2:e138Google Scholar
  51. Smith R (2006) The Trouble with Medical Journals. Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) (2008) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available via Accessed 10 Feb 2009
  53. Utiger RD (2001) WAME Syllabus for Prospective and Newly Appointed Editors. Available via Accessed 27 Feb 2009
  54. Villaneuva P, Peiro S, Librero J et al (2003) Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisements in the medical journals. Lancet 361: 27-32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilkes MS, Doblin BH, Shapiro MF (1992) Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journal: experts-assessments. Ann Intern Med 116: 912-919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) (2009) WAME publication ethics policies for medical journals. Available via Accessed 27 Feb 2009
  57. World Medical Association (WMA) (2008) Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available via . Accessed 27 Feb 2009

Copyright information

© L. Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Wroclaw, Poland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations