| Homepage |
| Search |
The journal’s editor notes that the drug industry has full control of many scientific societies, journals, and clinical practice guidelines. Members of special interest groups act as editors, reviewers, and consultants to medical journals, scientific meetings, and non-profit research organizations, with the task of systematically preventing the dissemination of data that may be in conflict with their interest. Censorship may be the result of direct prevention of publication and dissemination of findings by the pharmaceutical company itself. The paper provides several suggestions for preserving intellectual freedom in medicine, based on research evidence. Lenzer J, Brownlee S. Antidepressants: an untold story? BMJ 2008;336:532–534. (doi:10.1136/bmj.39504.662685.0F) This story about antidepressants highlights the ongoing problem of how study results are often distorted by a failure to access full datasets. In fact, the analysis of published and unpublished data from studies of antidepressants in adults shows that only a very small subset of patients seemed to benefit. The problem of publication bias is pointed out through the tendency to publish only positive studies and file away negative studies. On the contrary, all data should be made available to both patients and researchers. Redman BK, Yarandi HN, Merz JF. Empirical developments in retraction. Journal of Medical Ethics 2008;34:807–809. (doi:10.1136/jme.2007.023069) This study confirms that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported as being due to inability to reproduce. Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct. Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognized by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary. © Copyright 2009 by European Association of Science Editors Top of Page |
|
|