[The senior deputy editor responds:]
Stanley Baldwin's objectionable metaphor, reputedly penned by his cousin Rudyard Kipling, was levelled not at rank-and-file journalists and their editors, but at press barons of far greater heft; to aim it at our small news department seems over-reactive. That being said, we agree that authors and editors do carry enormous responsibility. This is one of the reasons why there are professional guidelines such as those of the ICMJE and the World Association of Medical Editors, and why reputable journalists adhere to ethical standards, as all professionals do. We emphasize, however, that there is no such thing as „responsible” journalism that does not take pains to protect itself from the influence of vested interests.
CMAJ has never, since its birth in 1911, been merely an association newsletter. It arose from the desire of Canadian physicians, under the auspices of their national association, to have a home-grown vehicle for original medical research. We are proud of that legacy, but attentive readers will know that CMAJ has matured into a journal of international standing and is not the mouthpiece of the CMA, if indeed it ever was.
We are not the only periodical to use the convention of unsigned lead editorials; this does not mean, however, that we do not hold ourselves accountable for their content.
To respond to Doug Craig, the inclusion of a news section in a scientific publication such as CMAJ does not make the question of editorial autonomy more difficult so much as more visible. Political sensitivities are sometimes more obvious in the selection, repression or reception of news articles than in the publication of „pure” research articles, even though there are plenty of examples of how political, ideological and, heaven knows, commercial interests have distorted the transmission of scientific research.
As for the applicability of the ICMJE statement (www.cmaj.ca/authors/policies.shtml) to news reporting, it seems fair to say that a situation such as the recent controversy over the Plan B story1 was not anticipated in the original drafting of this document. But, if I understand correctly, Craig's question seems to assume that science has a special entitlement to editorial autonomy. If that is the case, is science to be the Department of Truth in our journal, and news the Department of Prevarication?
REFERENCE
- 1.↵