Revealing the faults in medical journals

Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 75-83

  Liesegang, Thomas J ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Commercialism; Medical journals; Scientific merit

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MISCONDUCT; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EDITORIAL POLICIES; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 64549164547     PISSN: 0004069X     EISSN: 16614917     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00005-009-0012-2     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) (2007) The Scientific Basis of Influence and Reciprocity: a Symposium; 2007 Jun 12; Washington, DC. AAMC
2. M Angell 2008 Industry-sponsored clinical research: a broken system JAMA 300 1069 1071
3. R Bhopal J Rankin E [tmp] McColl 1997 The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty BMJ 314 1009 1012
4. NM Bressler TJ Liesegang AP Schachat 2004 Advantages and potential dangers of presentation before publication: third in a series on editorship Arch Ophthalmol 122 1045 1048
5. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2004) A code of conduct for editors of biomedical journals. Available via http://publicationethics.org/code- conduct. Accessed 2005 Aug 22
6. F Davidoff CD DeAngelis JM Drazen 2001 Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability Lancet 358 854 856
7. C DeAngelis 2006 The influence of money on medical science JAMA 296 996 998
8. C De Angelis JM Drazen FA Frizelle 2004 Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors N Engl J Med 351 1250 1251
9. K Dickersin 1990 The existence of publication bias and the risk factors for its occurrence JAMA 263 1385 1389
10. K Dickersin YI Min 1993 Publication bias: the problem that won't go away Ann NY Acad Sci 703 135 146
11. Editorship Series in Ophthalmology. Available via http://ajo.com/content/ editorship Accessed 27 Feb 2009
12. M Egger C Bartlett P Juni 2001 Are randomized controlled trials in the BMJ different? BMJ 323 1253 1254
13. A Flanagin LA Carey PB Fonanarosa 1998 Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peerreviewed medical journals JAMA 280 222 224
14. PB Fontanarosa A Flanagin DC DeAngelis 2005 Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies JAMA 294 110 111
15. WR Freeman 2005 Control of data, authorship, and responsibility for clinical trials publications Ophthalmology 112 1485 1486
16. F Godlee 2004 Dealing with editorial misconduct BMJ 329 1301 1302
17. Godlee F, Jefferson T (eds) (2003) Peer review in health sciences, 2nd edn. BMJ Books, London
18. S Gottlieb 2002 Congress criticizes drugs industry for misleading advertising BMJ 325 1379
19. R Horton 2002 The hidden research paper JAMA 287 2775 2778
20. Institute of Medicine (2001) Crossing the quality chasm. A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, The National Academies. Available via http://www.iom.edu/CMS/8089/5432.aspx. 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 http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/4870/4459.aspx. 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 http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/43729/61796.aspx. Accessed 27 Feb 2009
23. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PloS Med 2:e124
24. DA Jabs 2005 Improving the reporting of clinical case series Am J Ophthalmol 139 900 905
25. LL Kjaergard B Als-Nielsen 2002 Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published by the BMJ BMJ 325 249
26. LA Levin JL Gottlieb RW Beck 2005 Registration of clinical trials Arch Ophthalmol 123 1263 1264
27. J Lexchin LA Bero B Djulbegovic 2003 Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systemic review BMJ 326 1167 1170
28. PR Lichter 2008 Debunking myths in physician-industry conflicts of interest Am J Ophthalmol 146 159 171
29. TJ Liesegang 2007 Institutional review boards and new patient privacy issues in publication Indian J Ophthalmol 55 169 171
30. TJ Liesegang 2007 The meaning and need for informed consent in research Indian J Ophthalmol 55 1 3
31. TJ Liesegang 2007 Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Physician Learning 2.0 Ophthalmology 114 1801 1083
32. TJ Liesegang 2008 Commercialism, loss of professionalism, and the effect on journals Arch Ophthalmol 126 1292 1295
33. TJ Liesegang DM Albert AP Schachat 2008 How to ensure our readers' trust: the proper attribution of authors and contributors Am J Ophthalmol 146 337 340
34. TJ Liesegang DM Albert AP Schachat 2008 Not for your eyes: information concealed through publication bias Am J Ophthalmol 146 638 640
35. TJ Liesegang AP Schachat DM Albert 2005 Pharmaceutical companies and ophthalmic research Ophthalmology 112 363 365
36. TJ Liesegang AP Schachat DM Albert 2005 The Open Access initiative in scientific and biomedical publishing: Fourth in the series on editorship Am J Ophthalmol 139 156 167
37. TJ Liesegang M Shaikh JE Crook 2007 The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003 Am J Ophthalmol 143 551 560
38. Lock S (1991) A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine, 3rd edn. British Medical Journal, London
39. CM Olson D Rennie D Cook 2001 Publication bias in editorial decision making BMJ 323 2825 2828
40. J Pich X Came JA Amaiz 2003 Role of research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results Lancet 361 1015 1016
41. AS Relman 1981 The Ingelfinger rule N Engl J Med 305 824 826
42. D Rennie 1986 Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review JAMA 256 2391 2392
43. D Rennie 1997 Thyroid storm JAMA 277 1238 1243
44. D Rennie V Yank L Emanuel 1997 When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable JAMA 278 579 585
45. S Schroter S Evans L Emanuel 2004 Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomized controlled trial BMJ 328 673
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 http://www.councilscienceeditors. org/editorial-policies/white-paper.cfm. Accessed 27 Feb 2009
47. DW Shapiro WS Wenger MF Shapiro 1994 The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers JAMA 271 438 442
48. PO Seglen 1997 Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research BMJ 314 498 502
49. PO Seglen 1994 Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact J Am Soc Inf Sci 45 1 11
50. Smith R (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2:e138
51. Smith R (2006) The Trouble with Medical Journals. Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd, London
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 http://www.icmje.org/. Accessed 10 Feb 2009
53. Utiger RD (2001) WAME Syllabus for Prospective and Newly Appointed Editors. Available via http://www.wame.org/resources/editor-s-syllabus/. Accessed 27 Feb 2009
54. P Villaneuva S Peiro J Librero 2003 Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisements in the medical journals Lancet 361 27 32
55. MS Wilkes BH Doblin MF Shapiro 1992 Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journal: experts' assessments Ann Intern Med 116 912 919
56. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) (2009) WAME publication ethics policies for medical journals. Available via http://www.wame.org/ resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals/. Accessed 27 Feb 2009
57. World Medical Association (WMA) (2008) Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available via http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm. Accessed 27 Feb 2009