Journal reverses decision on publishing editorial previously rejected by marketing department
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
A journal that refused to print a guest editorial after its marketing department objected has reversed its decision, but the author now refuses to resubmit the article for publication.
The California based journal Dialysis and Transplantation rejected the article after it passed peer review. In a letter to the author, Dennis Cotter, the journal抯 executive editor, Joseph Herman, said: "Publication of your editorial would, in fact, not be accepted in some quarters . . . and apparently went beyond what our marketing department was willing to accommodate" (31 January, p 244).
The rejected guest editorial disputed the widely held perception that higher packed cell volumes attained by epoetin therapy improve the longevity of dialysis patients with end stage renal disease, and questioned the benefits of high US Medicare spending on epoetin. It also questioned the methods of studies that reported a survival benefit associated with higher packed cell volumes in end stage renal disease patients.
The president and chief executive of Dialysis and Transplantation, Deborah Carver, has now written to Mr Cotter saying that she has overturned the decision: "The initial decision was an error in judgement. Such errors do happen, though thankfully only rarely."
Ms Carver said that during her time with the journal, she had "taken pride in knowing that editorial decisions have never been overshadowed by marketing considerations, as difficult as that has sometimes been to ensure. Journalistic integrity is the backbone of any publication, particularly a medical journal. It is unfortunate that the incident with the editorial occurred. However, once it became clear that an error had been made, the appropriate actions were undertaken to rectify the error. Internal policies are also being reviewed to prevent any similar occurrence in the future."
Mr Cotter, however, declined the renewed offer. In a letter to Ms Carver, he wrote: "This episode has convinced us that the responsible action on our part is to continue our current efforts to have this manuscript published in a more academic journal . . . I do applaud your efforts to renew your staff抯 commitment to journalistic integrity, but I will have to decline your offer to publish our manuscript . . . At the very least, you抳e helped focus the community抯 attention on the importance of being open to viewpoints that challenge accepted wisdom."(London Owen Dyer)
The California based journal Dialysis and Transplantation rejected the article after it passed peer review. In a letter to the author, Dennis Cotter, the journal抯 executive editor, Joseph Herman, said: "Publication of your editorial would, in fact, not be accepted in some quarters . . . and apparently went beyond what our marketing department was willing to accommodate" (31 January, p 244).
The rejected guest editorial disputed the widely held perception that higher packed cell volumes attained by epoetin therapy improve the longevity of dialysis patients with end stage renal disease, and questioned the benefits of high US Medicare spending on epoetin. It also questioned the methods of studies that reported a survival benefit associated with higher packed cell volumes in end stage renal disease patients.
The president and chief executive of Dialysis and Transplantation, Deborah Carver, has now written to Mr Cotter saying that she has overturned the decision: "The initial decision was an error in judgement. Such errors do happen, though thankfully only rarely."
Ms Carver said that during her time with the journal, she had "taken pride in knowing that editorial decisions have never been overshadowed by marketing considerations, as difficult as that has sometimes been to ensure. Journalistic integrity is the backbone of any publication, particularly a medical journal. It is unfortunate that the incident with the editorial occurred. However, once it became clear that an error had been made, the appropriate actions were undertaken to rectify the error. Internal policies are also being reviewed to prevent any similar occurrence in the future."
Mr Cotter, however, declined the renewed offer. In a letter to Ms Carver, he wrote: "This episode has convinced us that the responsible action on our part is to continue our current efforts to have this manuscript published in a more academic journal . . . I do applaud your efforts to renew your staff抯 commitment to journalistic integrity, but I will have to decline your offer to publish our manuscript . . . At the very least, you抳e helped focus the community抯 attention on the importance of being open to viewpoints that challenge accepted wisdom."(London Owen Dyer)