Comments on: Judge Quashes Pfizer Bid For NEJM Papers

By: Dr. Sal Giorgianni

Dr. Sal Giorgianni — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:09:46 +0000

Not sure how this is good news for anyone. Not sure why NEJM would like to be viewed in same context as “media and journalists” (sorry Ed. S.). Last time I checked one of the least credible soruces of information in America is the media…and one of the reasons is shielded accountabiltiy. I would have thought medical journal editorial staffs would want to be in a bit of a different category; worng again.

By: Friday Blog Roundup « The Pump Handle

Friday Blog Roundup « The Pump Handle — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:23:29 +0000

[...] Ed Silverman at Pharmalot has some good news: a federal judge has denied Pfizer’s request to force a medical journal to hand over confidential peer reviews and editorial notes. [...]

By: Dr. Sal Giorgianni

Dr. Sal Giorgianni — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:57:37 +0000

This is HUGE. Granting these folks the same immunity as journalists is a really big deal. It seems to be contrary to one of the most important protections for learned-intermediaries who read these journals, transparency. Could these journals really wish to set up a double standard? All must be disclosed by investigators and sponsors but nothing but the final work product must be disclosed by the publishers? My cynical-side views this as another example of protectionism for the economic interests of medical publishers i.e. that is to say if the reviewers were publically accountable for comments and criticisms they might not be so willing to work for free. It will be interesting to see if Pfizer, or someone else downstream, might try to look at alternative remedies to address alleged grievances against statements or opinions that improperly impinge on an organizations reputation or business. Without any such redress we essentially give commercial publishers the ability to say whatever they want without any public accountability.