In the midst of heated public disputes, a highly respected medical journal encounters criticism and assault
New England Journal of Medicine Faces Criticism for Conservatism in Research Transparency
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a well-respected medical journal, has been facing criticism for its perceived resistance to changes in research transparency. This controversy revolves around several issues, including delayed corrections, a conservative stance towards data sharing, and resistance to evolving norms in research transparency.
One of the most notable controversies surrounds an editorial published in 2016, where Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, the Journal's editor-in-chief, and a deputy editor used the term "research parasites" to describe researchers who seek others' data to analyze or replicate their studies. This editorial was widely criticized for its dismissive tone towards data sharing and open science, highlighting a broader debate about the ethics and benefits of data reuse versus concerns over original investigator rights.
Another issue that has been raised is the Journal's slow response to correcting errors or inconsistencies in published studies. For instance, the CHALLENGE exercise study, which faced challenges due to a lack of clarity on censoring details, created interpretative challenges and reduced confidence in the reported findings. Critics argue for more proactive editorial measures to revise or clarify controversial or flawed studies promptly to uphold scientific rigor.
Furthermore, the NEJM has been criticized for lagging behind other journals in enforcing strict transparency standards. This resistance to change fuels criticism that the journal prioritizes prestige and traditional norms over modern open-science principles. The result is perceived barriers to independent verification of clinical trial findings and secondary analyses that could enhance scientific integrity.
Despite these controversies, it's important to note that studies published in the NEJM are cited more often than those of any of its peers. However, the search results did not provide detailed recent NEJM-specific controversies, but addressed related topics about transparency and clinical trial reporting that contextualize ongoing debates.
In 1984, the Journal was at the forefront of a nascent effort to respond to the potential bias arising from financial ties between pharmaceutical and device makers and physicians. Editor Arnold S. Relman established a new policy calling on doctors and researchers to disclose their funding and commercial interests.
In conclusion, the recent controversies surrounding the NEJM center on its conservative stance towards data sharing, exemplified by the "research parasites" editorial fallout, coupled with critiques regarding the timeliness and adequacy of corrections and transparency policies in an evolving research environment. These issues underscore tensions between traditional academic publishing models and contemporary demands for openness and accountability in medical research.
[1] Journal Article 1 [2] Journal Article 2 [4] Journal Article 4
- The call for greater transparency in health-and-wellness research extends beyond the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), as many education-and-self-development resources emphasize the importance of open science and data sharing in ensuring the integrity and reliability of medical-conditions research.
- In a fascinating exploration of the nexus between finance, business, and sports, a recent study published in the Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research investigated the economic impact of medical-conditions on athletic performance, noting a potential for general-news outlets to cover such topics in greater depth.
- Efforts to modernize the publishing industry are not exclusive to the NEJM, as many publishing companies focused on science have embraced open-access models, aiming to promote faster distribution of knowledge and increased access to research for scholars worldwide.
- Within the field of medical-conditions research, researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have published a journal article highlighting the importance of transparent reporting and data-sharing practices, advocating for quality improvements in health-and-wellness studies to strengthen evidence-based medical practice and advance patient care.
