Suppression by medical journals of a warning about overdosing formula‐fed infants with fluoride

In January 1990, a short letter was sent to the editor of the international medical journal, Pediatrics, to alert its readers that the standard, highly quoted paper by Singer and Ophaug on fluoride intake by infants, published in 1979 in the same journal, required revision/correction in order to protect one group of infants from receiving substantial overdoses of fluoride. This group comprises infants who are fed almost entirely on powdered formula which is reconstituted with fluoridated water.

The letter was based on the well‐established pediatric guidelines of water intake by infants and the fundamental toxicological principle of protecting groups at highest risk. It did not question the fluoridation of public water supplies. Nevertheless, the letter, together with a response to it by Ophaug, was rejected by the editor of Pediatrics, “due to a large backlog of articles.”; Following a protest, the letter was reviewed by three referees, two of whom conceded its main point, but was still not published.

In the present paper, the original, previously unpublished letter on fluoride intake by infants is first reproduced verbatim, and then the comments of the referees and editors are reported and examined. It is concluded that the most plausible explanation for the rejection of the letter is that it might assist the anti‐fluoridation movement. Another possible contributing explanation is that publication of the letter might reduce the status of the scholars who had defended the previous position and might be perceived to diminish the status of the journal.     

Trusting in Social Work

Two successive terms of a New Labour government have requiredsocial work practice in the UK to occupy a particular publicpolicy context that is, at best, indifferent and, at worst,hostile to some of the professional interests and traditionalconstituencies of social workers. In this paper, the immediatepast editors of the Journal reflect on how social work has soughtto adapt and survive under these conditions, as revealed inthe papers published during the period of their stewardship.     

Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review

Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers’ money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.     

Migration,gender and economic integration: international scholarship (2006–09) and an Aotearoa New Zealand research agenda

Abstract

This paper follows from the findings of the 2006 review of research on women, gender and migration published in International Migration Review. We begin by discussing three international trends in contemporary migration flows: diversification, bifurcation and feminisation; and examine their significance for New Zealand. We then review the research on gender and economic integration of migrants in developed countries in relation to three aspects: the characteristics of migrants; the strategies migrants use during settlement; and the contexts of reception in receiving communities. We identify insights and omissions in this scholarship relevant to New Zealand policy-oriented migration research. We argue that the gendered nature of migration cannot be ignored, and that while human capital approaches to economic integration are important, they are insufficient for understanding complex migrant outcomes. Rather, comprehensive, integrated and local research is required to understand migrant experience and outcomes and to assess the effectiveness of immigration policy settings.     

More on Plagiarism in the Social Sciences*

This research presents the results of a follow‐up survey to journal editors more than a decade after Enders and Hoover (Journal of Economic Literature 42(3):487–93). The original survey asked editors about their definition of plagiarism and known cases. This work investigates what, if anything, has changed in regards to how journal editors react to suspected plagiarism and if the definition of plagiarism has changed. In addition to surveying editors of economics journals, we have surveyed many more editors, including political science, sociology, and others, to contrast differences that might exist. There is great variation within disciplines regarding the appropriate definition of plagiarism or punishments but fairly consistent agreement across disciplines.     

Researchers’ Views of the Acceptability of Restrictive Provisions in Clinical Trial Agreements with Industry Sponsors

We conducted a mail survey of 884 U.S. medical school faculty active in clinical research to elicit their views about the acceptability of provisions in contracts for industry-sponsored clinical trials that would restrict investigators’ academic freedom and control over trials. We compared their responses to results from a similar survey of research administrators at 107 medical schools. There was substantial variation among clinical researchers in their acceptability judgments, with a relatively large proportion of clinical trial investigators willing to accept provisions that give industry sponsors considerable control over the dissemination of research results. There were significant differences in the perceptions of clinical trial investigators versus other recently published clinical researchers; investigators with a high versus low percentage of research support from industry; junior versus senior faculty; and investigators at institutions with high versus low National Institute of Health (NIH) funding ranks. There was also a significant divergence of views in a number of areas between clinical trialists and research administrators who negotiate clinical trial contracts on their behalf. Medical school faculty could benefit from additional guidance about what their institution views as acceptable parameters for industry-sponsored clinical trial agreements.     

Researchers' views of the acceptability of restrictive provisions in clinical trial agreements with industry sponsors

We conducted a mail survey of 884 U.S. medical school faculty active in clinical research to elicit their views about the acceptability of provisions in contracts for industry-sponsored clinical trials that would restrict investigators' academic freedom and control over trials. We compared their responses to results from a similar survey of research administrators at 107 medical schools. There was substantial variation among clinical researchers in their acceptability judgments, with a relatively large proportion of clinical trial investigators willing to accept provisions that give industry sponsors considerable control over the dissemination of research results. There were significant differences in the perceptions of clinical trial investigators versus other recently published clinical researchers; investigators with a high versus low percentage of research support from industry; junior versus senior faculty; and investigators at institutions with high versus low National Institute of Health (NIH) funding ranks. There was also a significant divergence of views in a number of areas between clinical trialists and research administrators who negotiate clinical trial contracts on their behalf. Medical school faculty could benefit from additional guidance about what their institution views as acceptable parameters for industry-sponsored clinical trial agreements.     

Retraction: From urban‐first to urban–rural integration: discourse and the development of social assistant policy in China

Zhang HM (2011). From urban‐first to urban–rural integration: discourse and the development of social assistance policy in China. International Journal of Social Welfare[E‐pub ahead of print, DOI: 10.1111/j.1468‐2397.2011.00791.x]. The above article, published online on 7 April 2011 in Wiley Online Library ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ) has been retracted by agreement between the author, the journal Editors, Sven Hessle and Neil Gilbert, and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to overlap between this article and material previously published elsewhere, including: Shi S‐J (2006). Left to Market and Family‐Again? Ideas and the Development of the Rural Pension Policy in China. Social Policy & Administration 40: 791–806. and Bleses P, Seeleib‐Kaiser M (2004). The Dual Transformation of the German Welfare State. Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York, Palgrave Macmillan Press.     

The Marxist-Leninist Theory of Art and Its Bourgeois Critics

From the Editors. November 1980 marked the seventieth birthday of the prominent Soviet estheticist, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, and Honored Scholar of the RSFSR Avner Iakovlevich Zis'. In publishing his article, the editors take the opportunity to congratulate the author on this occasion and to wish him health, good spirits, and further creative successes.     

民国时期的《大中》杂志叙录

目前学界对民国时期在北京出版发行的《大中》杂志的介绍和研究还相当匮乏。本文考证这份社会科学综合性刊物的出版编辑情况,梳理其登载的内容,讨论其在历史学、文学、教育学等方面的价值,指陈其编辑排版错漏,认为《大中》杂志不该被湮没,值得关注和研究。     

The social condition of the New Zealand people: a pre-election review of social indicator information

ABSTRACT

Many social commentators have considered that alongside the fiscal transparency enjoined by contemporary New Zealand governments, there should be a complementary social responsibility reporting. This task is usually assigned to social indicator frameworks. However, at present (as the 2017 election looms) there is a faltering in the provision of social indicators which have been in place in New Zealand for almost two decades, with the exception of the recent 2016 survey data from Statistics New Zealand and Ministry of Social Development that were made available within a month of writing this article. Having commented on the current status of the New Zealand social indicator system, we present data from the General Social Survey and the Quality of Life survey to at least convey recent trends in subjective social well-being and reported behaviours and experiences. References are also made to the accumulating literature on social well-being in New Zealand, followed by suggestions for more systematic indicator development and underpinning research.     

New Information Technologies and the Fate of Rationality in Contemporary Culture: A Roundtable

After my article about Pavlik Morozov was published in the journal Chelovek i zakon (1989, no. 1), almost 2,000 letters came in to the editors addressed to me, the author. And in each one of them, with rare exceptions, the readers defended the murdered Pioneer and stood up for his generation. Their hearts were filled with resentment, wrath, and pain. But there was another reaction as well—not from readers but from certain members of the brotherhood of the pen. And their attacks resounded with such rage that it became frightening.     

Is “humane managed care” an oxymoron? (Essay Review)

Abstract

Though the impact of managed care on clinical social work practice and education has been widely acknowledged and critiqued, Humane Managed Care? edited by Schamess and Lightburn, represents a compendium of papers addressing all aspects of the recent phenomena and its impact on practitioners, educators, and most especially our clients. In reviewing this impressive and comprehensive volume, this paper addresses many of the most controversial and painful aspects of the “Managed Care Revolution,” including its impact on the level of clinical practice and its economic and political ramifications. It is suggested that the editors and some of the authors are less hopeful about the possibility of providing “humane” treatment in the managed care environment than they were only a few years earlier, as indicated by a comparison of this volume with the 1996 special edition of Smith College Studies in Social Work. This article also critiques some of the anthology's chapters, which suggest that the changes in health care delivery will ultimately be beneficial to clinical social workers.

Essay Review: Humane Managed Care? Gerald Schamess, M.S.S. & Anita Lightburn, Ph.D. (Eds.). (Washington, DC: NASW Press, 1998.)     

From probability to proof: The respective roles of scientific reviews and the non‐scientific press in the publicizing of medical research and its clinical applications

Can and should clearly denned distinctions between probability and proof be offered to the public by the mass media in response to popular demand for the latest medical information? Isn't the need to know both legitimate and ever‐more pronounced?

The pressure for prompt public disclosure of clinical trial or medical research results emanates from a variety of highly vocal sources (the patients themselves, the investigators, the business world, the new academic commentators, the mass media, the healthy population and its requirement for “healthful”; life styles). And yet in spite of all this pressure, clinical research but rarely moves forward with a giant leap. Reasonable solutions in view of balanced and equitable release of information both to and by mass media have been proposed in editorials highlighted by the best‐known medical journals. On the one hand, the critical importance of the mass media in transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community has been stressed. On the other hand, the highly decisive role of the best‐known medical journals in the furthering of objective release of clinical research or trial results has been corroborated by several recent initiatives of best‐known medical journal editors. A great step forward in dealings between medical journals and the mass media was approved in London in 1993 by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, by dint of four main recommendations. These balanced and equitable recommendations may at one and the same time: stimulate legitimate public demand for access to important medical information without unreasonable delay; and prevent that media reports on scientific research lead to wide‐spread dissemination of premature and inaccurate conclusions.     

Are Private Interests Clouding the Peer-Review Process of the WHO Bulletin? A Case Study

Readers’ trust on the medical literature has been eroded, and journal editors and some editorial boards are taking measures to ensure that authors fully and accurately report research findings and disclose conflicts of interest. This article describes a case study in which the papers editor of the World Health Organization (WHO) Bulletin influenced the content of an article that had been approved by the external reviewers. The editor objected to the publication of the large price differentials of the new molecular entities (NMEs) across the Latin American countries where they had been tested and the limited added therapeutic value of the NMEs that had been assessed by independent drug bulletins. This article summarizes the exchanges with WHO staff and posits the hypothesis that the WHO Bulletin might be affected by the shifts in WHO financing. Several authors have raised concern about the impact of financial conflicts of interest in WHO activities in the field of nutrition, intellectual property, and in the emergency response to the flu pandemic. Moreover, it has been reported that powerful WHO contributors pressured WHO into revising its publication policy. This is the first time that authors question if these conflicts of interest are also affecting the editorial independence of the WHO Bulletin.     

出版领域中对著作权人的侵权现象分析

《中华人民共和国著作权法》对保护作者著作权有了明确的规定 ,但是在出版领域 ,期刊社及其编辑侵犯作者著作权的事例屡屡发生 ,表现为侵犯作者的发表权、修改权、署名权和报酬权 ,这是比较突出的行业性侵权现象。鉴于此 ,要深入领会《著作权法》的内容和实质 ,充分认识侵权的严重性和危害性 ,认真把握好期刊编辑的权利范围。     

Under the Influence: The Interplay among Industry,Publishing, and Drug Regulation

The relationships among academe, publishing, and industry can facilitate commercial bias in how drug efficacy and safety data are obtained, interpreted, and presented to regulatory bodies and prescribers. Through a critique of published and unpublished trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for approval of a new antidepressant, vortioxetine, we present a case study of the “ghost management” of the information delivery process. We argue that currently accepted practices undermine regulatory safeguards aimed at protecting the public from unsafe or ineffective medicines. The economies of influence that may intentionally and unintentionally produce evidence-biased—rather than evidence-based—medicine are identified. This is not a simple story of author financial conflicts of interest, but rather a complex tale of ghost management of the entire process of bringing a drug to market. This case study shows how weak regulatory policies allow for design choices and reporting strategies that can make marginal products look novel, more effective, and safer than they are, and how the selective and imbalanced reporting of clinical trial data in medical journals results in the marketing of expensive “me-too” drugs with questionable risk/benefit profiles. We offer solutions for neutralizing these economies of influence.