This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (26)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kevin Schulman, MD; Daniel P. Sulmasy, OFM, MD; Deborah Roney

JAMA. 1994;272(2):154-156.

Abstract
Objective.
—To evaluate aspects of the publication process that may affect the quality of the literature in clinical economics and biomedical ethics, and to learn about the policies of medical journals regarding disclosure of relationships between investigators and research sponsors.

Design.
—Mail survey.

Participants.
—Editors in chief of 15 major medical journals.

Results.
—Twelve editors responded to the survey. Ten reported having statisticians among their editors, while only two had health economists and none had ethicists. Clinicians in the specialty field were almost always the primary reviewers of submissions, while methodologists (statisticians, health economists, or ethicists) were involved less frequently. Journals reported little knowledge of the training of their reviewers in these fields. While nine journals requested disclosure of the financial relationship between author and sponsor, only one inquired whether the sponsor's written approval was required prior to manuscript submission, and only one knew whether there was an independent steering committee for the study.

Conclusions.
—These findings suggest that the peer review process can be strengthened to improve the quality of the medical literature in clinical economics and biomedical ethics. Journal editors also need to better understand the terms of research sponsorship agreements.

(JAMA. 1994;272:154-156)

Author Affiliations
From the Division of General Internal Medicine (Drs Schulman and Sulmasy and Ms Roney), the Clinical Economics Research Unit (Dr Schulman and Ms Roney), and the Center for Clinical Bioethics (Dr Sulmasy), Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.

Footnotes
Presented in part at the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, Ill, September 10, 1993.

Reprint requests to Clinical Economics Research Unit, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2233 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 525, Washington, DC 20007 (Dr Schulman).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Partnerships Between Universities and Industry
Ehrle et al.
JAMA 2002;287:1398-1400.
FULL TEXT  

Problems With the Interpretation of Pharmacoeconomic Analyses: A Review of Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Hill et al.
JAMA 2000;283:2116-2121.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pharmacoeconomic Analyses: Making Them Transparent, Making Them Credible
Rennie and Luft
JAMA 2000;283:2158-2160.
FULL TEXT  

Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts
Callaham et al.
JAMA 1998;280:229-231.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 2
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:277-306.
ABSTRACT  

Paying the Piper for Pharmacoeconomic Studies
Neumann
Med Decis Making 1998;18:S23-S26.
 

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 1
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:181-211.
ABSTRACT  

Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ
Drummond and Jefferson
BMJ 1996;313:275-283.
FULL TEXT  

Assessing quality of economic submissions to the BMJ
Jefferson et al.
BMJ 1995;311:393c-394.
FULL TEXT  

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
Steinberg et al.
NEJM 1995;332:123-125.
FULL TEXT