CMAJ criticized during annual meeting

Some doctors disagree with CMAJ editorial decisions, and they used last month's CMA annual meeting in Quebec City to let the editor know. When British Columbia GP John O'Brien-Bell, a CMA past president, questioned the decision to publish a particular article on hospital downsizing (www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-163/issue-4/0397.htm), Editor John Hoey explained that publication decisions are made after peer review and an independent assessment by 5 CMAJ editors.

He also pointed out that science is never simply “right” or “wrong” — it advances through a process of peer review and publication that results in further discussion and critiquing. He suggested that letters to the editor are an appropriate forum for specific criticism of published research.

Addiction specialists Nady el-Guebaly of Calgary and Raju Hajela of Kingston, Ont., took CMAJ to task for a May 15 editorial calling for the decriminalization of marijuana and supporting Health Canada's decision to approve the medicinal use of marijuana (164[10]:1397, www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-164/issue-10/1397.asp); the CMA adopted a policy in favour of decriminalization 20 years ago but it has taken the position that there is insufficient clinical evidence to support medicinal use of the drug.

Hoey said a new e-letters feature on the eCMAJ site lets physicians respond quickly to editorials or other items, allowing them to raise questions and voice opinions. Such comments are published in full, as submitted. He encouraged physicians to use this new e-letters forum (www.cma.ca/cmaj/elettersinfo.htm) and to continue submitting letters to the editor for CMAJ's print version.

Dr. Albert Schumacher, past president of the Ontario Medical Association, expressed concern that journalists are citing articles such as the marijuana editorial as association policy. CMA President Peter Barrett agreed that the editorial had created some problems for the association but said this is a sign of the journal's editorial independence and proof that CMAJ is not “a CMA policy rag.”