Excluding the experts?
======================

* Steve Arshinoff

Although it is a laudatory objective to publish only articles by authors who have no financial relationship with corporations or the products and issues discussed in the articles, as outlined in a recent *CMAJ* editorial,1 it may not be beneficial for readers to be deprived of the information thus excluded. Furthermore, the new *CMAJ* policy on conflict of interest guarantees that, no matter how carefully and without bias a drug company studies its product, the report of such a study will never appear in the journal. However, journals like *CMAJ* are only too willing to criticize drug companies for not publishing drug studies, accusing them of trying to hide information.

Because of my unusual academic background and interests, I serve (or have served) as a paid consultant for almost every company that manufactures or sells ophthalmic viscosurgical devices, as well as the Canadian government and the US Food and Drug Administration. I sat on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) committee that set the world standard for ophthalmic viscosurgical devices.2 I have published over 200 peer-reviewed articles, most dealing with these devices, and I am on the editorial boards of 3 ophthalmic journals. In this capacity, I review a significant proportion of the major articles about ophthalmic viscosurgical devices before they appear in the medical literature.

Like other medical editors and reviewers, I am extremely careful to avoid any possible bias in my own articles and in my reviews of articles by other researchers. I consult for all sides on most issues; I do not care who wins an argument from the financial point of view, but I do care passionately that the academic issues are resolved honestly and correctly. Undoubtedly there are many other “experts” like me, who will henceforth be excluded from contributing to your journal.

Your opinion of the ability of your readers to distinguish good articles from bad (as suggested by this policy) seems rather insulting. I am unaware of any example where censorship benefited the reader, and the new *CMAJ* policy appears to be nothing less than misguided blanket censorship.

## References

1.  1. Conflicts of interests and investments [editorial]. CMAJ 2004;171(11):1313.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTcxLzExLzEzMTMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMjoiL2NtYWovMTczLzgvODQ5LjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

2.  2. Ophthalmic implants — ophthalmic viscosurgical devices. *ISO standard 15798:2001*. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2001.