© 2003 American Thoracic Society
Financial Disclosure of ReviewersTo the Editor:Your recent editorial (1) provides new guidelines and forms to disclose financial interests of authors submitting manuscripts to the Journal. I agree that this is very important to maintain the credibility of the published information. This sentiment has been echoed by a number of other scientific journals (2–4). I think that it is equally important for the reviewers of the Journal to submit a similar financial disclosure when they are invited to review a manuscript submitted to the journal. Although the peer review process depends on trust, bad peer reviewing is not uncommon (5). Although referees are requested to decline to review manuscripts that pose potential conflicts of interest, they are not obliged to sign disclosure forms similar to those that the authors sign. The financial interests of reviewers can potentially prevent an article from seeing the light of day before its credibility can be assessed by the readers. Also, there should be transparency and objectivity in selecting reviewers for the Journal. Could the Journal consider a similar editorial stating the policy for selection of reviewers and their financial disclosures?
Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health St. Joseph's Healthcare & McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Acknowledgments K.P. has participated as a speaker in preceptorships and symposia organized by various pharmaceutical companies and has been awarded honoraria for the same (Merck Frosst $2,500, Altana $3,500, GSK $1,500). REFERENCES
From the Editor:I thank Dr. Parameswaran for raising a number of points concerning the Journal's policy on conflict of interest (1).The Journal requests reviewers to inform us of any conflicts of interest related to a manuscript they are asked to review. Many reviewers do. In some cases, we request the reviewer to continue with the review and the associate editor takes the conflict into account when making a decision. Just as a financial interest does not invalidate the conclusions of a paper, neither does a conflict automatically prevent a scientist from reviewing a manuscript. The important point is that the conflict is disclosed: to readers for accepted articles, and to editors for manuscripts undergoing peer review. When selecting people to review a manuscript, editors look for researchers who are most knowledgeable in a field. Some editors believe that if an editor has done a good job in selecting the person who knows the most about a subject, the reviewer not only will have an intellectual conflict of interest, but should have one (2). When evaluating critiques, our associate editors are vigilant for this possibility. Nonfinancial conflicts are inherent in research, whereas financial conflicts are optional on the part of a researcher (1). That is why our disclosure policy is limited to disclosure of financial relationships. Dr. Parameswaran recommends that the Journal require reviewers to complete a financial disclosure form. More than 60% of journals do not request reviewers to make any mention of possible conflict (3). Few journals require reviewers to complete a financial disclosure form (BMJ being an exception). At this point, we do not plan such a form for reviewers, although all our policies are regularly reexamined. I agree with Dr. Parameswaran that reviewers should be selected in an objective manner. AJRCCM has more than 6,000 reviewers, linked to 172 descriptor categories, in its Internet database (4). We objectively select the best reviewers for a manuscript, whereas the old approach was at risk for constituting an old boys' network. Our database is constantly updated and reviewers not meeting the Journal's expectations are deleted. None of the other 190 journals using the ScholarOne online system has a database as sophisticated as that of AJRCCM. Unlike Dr. Parameswaran, I believe that anonymous peer review is superior to an open system. A few journals have started to experiment with open peer review. But the burden of proof is with these journals. Anonymous peer review has been pivotal to the success of science for more than 300 years (5, 6). We need rigorous proof that an alternative is superior before replacing the current system.
Acknowledgments M.J.T. is editor of AJRCCM and is responsible for developing its policy on conflict of interest. He receives a fixed stipend from the American Thoracic Society and will not be affected financially by the success or failure of AJRCCM's policy on conflict of interest. He does not receive financial support for research from pharmaceutical, biotechnology, or medical device companies. He does not serve as a consultant to or on the advisory board of any company. He receives royalties for two books published by McGraw-Hill, Inc. REFERENCES
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
