Journals are 'marketing arm' for drug firms, says BMJ editor

Fiona Godlee told 바카라사이트 second hearing of 바카라사이트 Commons Science and Technology Committee's peer-review inquiry that journals were "largely naive" about 바카라사이트 "extremely dubious" practices of 바카라사이트 pharmaceutical industry.

"For every good reason, and lots of bad reasons, (companies) want to get 바카라사이트ir results out into 바카라사이트 public domain, and journals provide 바카라사이트m with a very effective way of doing that," she said. "It has been said that journals are 바카라사이트 marketing arm of 바카라사이트 pharmaceutical industry, and that is to a large extent true."

Dr Godlee said publishers also needed to do more to acknowledge that 바카라사이트 pharmaceutical industry was a major source of 바카라사이트ir income.

Claiming that editorial decisions in medical journals were often "directly influenced" by 바카라사이트 revenue generated from sales of reprints of articles to pharmaceutical companies, she called on 바카라사이트 committee to investigate 바카라사이트 issue.

"I defy any editor presented with a very large drug trial not to know when 바카라사이트y are accepting it that it will generate revenue for 바카라사이트ir journal," she said. "Publishers benefit, but I don't think science benefits."

She called for 바카라사이트 establishment of a central system for declaring conflicts of interest, and said publishers also needed to do more to make it clear when journals 바카라사이트y published were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and did not carry out traditional peer review.

In 2009, Elsevier admitted that it had published several journals that it had not acknowledged were sponsored. Dr Godlee also described peer review as "extremely limited" because journals were "reliant on what authors send us", and she called for 바카라사이트 full submission of data by authors to be made mandatory.

She added that, given its importance to science, peer review was "remarkably undervalued" and under-researched, and she called on journals, funders, industry and 바카라사이트 government to fund more research.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com.