An editorial in JAMA published online by its editors that outlined the journal’s revised policy on investigating conflicts of interest was replaced by a milder version, without an erratum or notice of retraction, reports Udo Schuklenk on his ethics blog (http://ethxblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/jama-follow-up.html). The editorial was also changed in all biomedical databases. This follows heavy criticism of the way JAMA dealt with a complaint from Jonathan Leo about the journal’s handling of undisclosed competing interests in a paper. The original editorial had the DOI 10.1001/jama.2009.480; the revision has the citation 2009;302:198-9, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/2/198. See http://ese-bookshelf.blogspot.com/2009/03/jama-gags-whistleblowers.html
Comments