Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revealing the faults in medical journals

  • Varia
  • Published:
Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis Aims and scope

Abstract

Medical journals hold an exalted position in medicine, but have many shortcomings. This perspective reviews some of the shortcomings of medical journals which are primarily related to inexperience, bias, and commercialism. The issues discussed include the uncertain mission of the traditional medical journal in the modern digital age, the inherent inexperience of voluntary editorial boards, the weaknesses and capricious nature of decisions made by the peer-review process, the uneven value of most journal articles, the bias in what gets submitted and published in journals, the misunderstanding about the criteria for authorship, the misunderstanding of the need for ethical review board approval of studies, the misunderstanding of the need for informed consent for research from patients and ethical review boards, the various sources of assistance to editors and authors in dealing with the many ethical issues arising in the publication process, the commercialization and manipulation of medical journals by industry, the prevalent and complex financial entanglements of authors with industry, and the imperfect impact factor, which has the potential to be abused. The perspective concludes with theorization of the role of medical journals in the future. Readers need to scrutinize data in the literature carefully and interpret the discussions and conclusions critically, as there are biases in what is published in medical journals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

IF:

impact factor

WoS:

Web of Science

Equation:

Eq

References

  • Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) (2007) The Scientific Basis of Influence and Reciprocity: a Symposium; 2007 Jun 12; Washington, DC. AAMC

  • Angell M (2008) Industry-sponsored clinical research: a broken system. JAMA 300: 1069-1071

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E et al (1997) The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ 314: 1009-1012

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bressler NM, Liesegang TJ, Schachat AP et al (2004) Advantages and potential dangers of presentation before publication: third in a series on editorship. Arch Ophthalmol 122: 1045-1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2004) A code of conduct for editors of biomedical journals. Available via http://publicationethics.org/code-conduct. Accessed 2005 Aug 22

  • Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM et al (2001) Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet 358: 854-856

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis C (2006) The influence of money on medical science. JAMA 296: 996-998

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 351: 1250-1251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and the risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263: 1385-1389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickersin K, Min YI (1993) Publication bias: the problem that won’t go away. Ann NY Acad Sci 703: 135-146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Editorship Series in Ophthalmology. Available via http://ajo.com/content/editorship Accessed 27 Feb 2009

  • Egger M, Bartlett C, Juni P (2001) Are randomized controlled trials in the BMJ different?. BMJ 323: 1253-1254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fonanarosa PB et al (1998) Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peerreviewed medical journals. JAMA 280: 222-224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis DC (2005) Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA 294: 110-111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman WR (2005) Control of data, authorship, and responsibility for clinical trials publications. Ophthalmology 112: 1485-1486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godlee F (2004) Dealing with editorial misconduct. BMJ 329: 1301-1302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godlee F, Jefferson T (eds) (2003) Peer review in health sciences, 2nd edn. BMJ Books, London

  • Gottlieb S (2002) Congress criticizes drugs industry for misleading advertising. BMJ 325: 1379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horton R (2002) The hidden research paper. JAMA 287: 2775-2778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine (2001) Crossing the quality chasm. A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, The National Academies. Available via http://www.iom.edu/CMS/8089/5432.aspx. Accessed 17 Feb 2009

  • Institute of Medicine (2002) Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington: National Academy of Sciences. Available via http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/4870/4459.aspx. Accessed 27 Feb 2009

  • Institute of Medicine (2009) Beyond the HIPAA privacy rule: Enhancing privacy, improving Health through research. Washington. The National Academies. Available via http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/43729/61796.aspx. Accessed 27 Feb 2009

  • Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PloS Med 2:e124

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabs DA (2005) Improving the reporting of clinical case series. Am J Ophthalmol 139: 900-905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B (2002) Association between competing interests and authors-conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published by the BMJ. BMJ 325: 249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levin LA, Gottlieb JL, Beck RW et al (2005) Registration of clinical trials. Arch Ophthalmol 123: 1263-1264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B et al (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systemic review. BMJ 326: 1167-1170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter PR (2008) Debunking myths in physician-industry conflicts of interest. Am J Ophthalmol 146: 159-171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesegang TJ (2007a) Institutional review boards and new patient privacy issues in publication. Indian J Ophthalmol 55: 169-171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesegang TJ (2007b) The meaning and need for informed consent in research. Indian J Ophthalmol 55: 1-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesegang TJ (2007c) Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Physician Learning 2.0. Ophthalmology 114: 1801-1083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesegang TJ (2008) Commercialism, loss of professionalism, and the effect on journals. Arch Ophthalmol 126: 1292-1295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesegang TJ, Albert DM, Schachat AP (2008) How to ensure our readers-trust: the proper attribution of authors and contributors. Am J Ophthalmol 146: 337-340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesegang TJ, Albert DM, Schachat AP (2008) Not for your eyes: information concealed through publication bias. Am J Ophthalmol 146: 638-640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesegang TJ, Schachat AP, Albert DM (2005a) Pharmaceutical companies and ophthalmic research. Ophthalmology 112: 363-365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesegang TJ, Schachat AP, Albert DM (2005b) The Open Access initiative in scientific and biomedical publishing: Fourth in the series on editorship. Am J Ophthalmol 139: 156-167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesegang TJ, Shaikh M, Crook JE (2007) The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. Am J Ophthalmol 143: 551-560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lock S (1991) A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine, 3rd edn. British Medical Journal, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D et al (2001) Publication bias in editorial decision making. BMJ 323: 2825-2828

    Google Scholar 

  • Pich J, Came X, Amaiz JA et al (2003) Role of research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results. Lancet 361: 1015-1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Relman AS (1981) The Ingelfinger rule. N Engl J Med 305: 824-826

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie D (1986) Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review. JAMA 256: 2391-2392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie D (1997) Thyroid storm. JAMA 277: 1238-1243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L (1997) When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA 278: 579-585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schroter S, Black N, Evans S et al (2004) Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 328: 673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Lichter D and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors (2006) CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Reston,Va: CSE. Available via http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/white_paper.cfm. Accessed 27 Feb 2009

  • Shapiro DW, Wenger WS, Shapiro MF (1994) The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA 271: 438-442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314: 498-402

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen PO (1994) Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. J Am Soc Inf Sci 45: 1-11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2:e138

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (2006) The Trouble with Medical Journals. Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) (2008) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available via http://www.icmje.org/. Accessed 10 Feb 2009

  • Utiger RD (2001) WAME Syllabus for Prospective and Newly Appointed Editors. Available via http://www.wame.org/resources/editor-s-syllabus/. Accessed 27 Feb 2009

  • Villaneuva P, Peiro S, Librero J et al (2003) Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisements in the medical journals. Lancet 361: 27-32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes MS, Doblin BH, Shapiro MF (1992) Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journal: experts-assessments. Ann Intern Med 116: 912-919

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) (2009) WAME publication ethics policies for medical journals. Available via http://www.wame.org/resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals/. Accessed 27 Feb 2009

  • World Medical Association (WMA) (2008) Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available via http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm . Accessed 27 Feb 2009

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    Thomas J. Liesegang MD (Editor in Chief, American Journal of Ophthalmology)

Authors
  1. Thomas J. Liesegang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas J. Liesegang MD.

Additional information

The editors dedicate this article to the memory of Prof. Ludwik Hirszfeld, founder of the Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences (Wrocław, Poland) and its two journals (Postępy Higieny i Medycyny Doświadczalnej in 1949, Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis in 1953), who died fifty-five years ago.

About this article

Cite this article

Liesegang, T.J. Revealing the faults in medical journals. Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp. 57, 75–83 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0012-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0012-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation