In the wake of the receipt of a letter seeming to threaten the editorial independence of The New England Journal of Medicine, the NEJM’s editor-in-chief has responded to the Interim U.S. Attorney who had authored it.
On April 23, Stat News’s Anil Oza broke his report that “Last week, at least one scientific journal received a letter from a top U.S. attorney asking it to respond to alleged bias. Now, one of the world’s leading medical journals, has received a similar inquiry as well. The New England Journal of Medicine’s editor in chief, Eric Rubin [M.D., Ph.D.], received a letter from the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Edward R. Martin Jr. in recent days in which the prosecutor asked six questions, largely about alleged bias in the decision to publish unspecified content. The journal told STAT it responded by affirming its commitment to evidence-based recommendations and editorial independence.”
Oza quoted Dr. Rubin as writing to Martin that, “as practicing physicians, our editors recognize our responsibility to doctors and patients. We use rigorous peer review and editorial processes to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the research we publish. We support the independence of medical journals and their First Amendment rights to free expression. The Journal actively fosters scholarly scientific dialogue and remains steadfast in its commitment to supporting authors, readers, and patients.”
On April 25, the New York Times’s Teddy Rosenbluth followed up with a more extensive report, which included her quotes from Rubin. She wrote that “A federal prosecutor in Washington has contacted The New England Journal of Medicine, considered the world’s most prestigious medical journal, with questions that suggested without evidence that it was biased against certain views and influenced by external pressures. Dr. Eric Rubin, the editor in chief of N.E.J.M., described the letter as ‘vaguely threatening,’ Rosenbluth wrote, following an interview with the editor.
Further, Rosenbluth reported, “At least three other journals have received similar letters from Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington. Mr. Martin has been criticized for using his office to target opponents of the administration. His letters accused the publications of being ‘partisans in various scientific debates’ and asked a series of accusatory questions about bias and the selection of research articles. Do they accept submissions from scientists with ‘competing viewpoints’? What do they do if the authors whose work they published ‘may have misled their readers”? Are they transparent about influence from “supporters, funders, advertisers and others’?
The New England Journal is apparently one of several clinical journals that have received s letters from Martin that involved a menacing tone. MedPageToday’s Kristina Fiore wrote on April 24 that, “In his letter to CHEST Editor-in-Chief Peter Mazzone, M.D., M.P.H., of the Cleveland Clinic, Martin asked five questions, including about how the journal handles misinformation, competing viewpoints, and how it assesses the role of funders in the development of submitted articles. Martin requested a response from Mazzone by May 2. The letter to CHEST was dated April 14 and was originally posted on Xopens in a new tab or window by Eric Reinhart, MD, of Chicago.”
Further, Fiore wrote, “Mazzone did not return a request for comment, but the American College of Chest Physicians, which publishes CHEST, confirmed to MedPage Today that it had received the letter and said in an email that its attorneys were reviewing it. The organization noted that the letter’s content ‘was posted online without our knowledge.’”
What’s more, Fiore wrote, “The journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, the official journal of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), also received a similar letter. “Obstetrics and Gynecology has editorial independence from ACOG but shares our mission of improving outcomes for all people in need of obstetric and gynecologic care,” an ACOG spokesperson said in an email. ‘We are proud of the journal’s focus on scientific data and patient-centered and respectful, evidence-based care.’ Two other journals did not want to be named for the story. Along with NEJM, CHEST, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, there are now at least five medical journals that have received letters from the DOJ — and there are likely others. ‘It’s likely that letters were sent to many more journals,’ Reinhart told MedPage Today. ‘CHEST‘s was simply the first to leak.’”
