Amid Public Feuds, A Venerated Medical Journal Finds Itself Under Attack
by Charles Ornstein
April 5, 2016
The New England Journal of Medicine is arguably the best-known and most venerated medical journal in the world. Studies featured in its pages are cited more often, on average, than those of any of its peers. And the careers of young researchers can take off if their work is deemed worthy of appearing in it.
But following a series of well-publicized feuds with prominent medical researchers and former editors of the Journal, some are questioning whether the publication is slipping in relevancy and reputation. The Journal and its top editor, critics say, have resisted correcting errors and lag behind others in an industry-wide push for more openness in medical research. And dissent has been dismissed with a paternalistic arrogance, they say.
In a widely derided editorial earlier this year, Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, the Journal’s editor-in-chief, and a deputy used the term “research parasites” to describe researchers who seek others’ data to analyze or replicate their studies, which many say is a crucial step in the scientific process. And last year, the Journal ran a controversial series saying concerns about conflicts of interest in medicine are oversimplified and overblown.
“They basically have a view that … they don’t need to change or adapt. It’s their way or the highway,” said Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and chief academic officer at Scripps Health in La Jolla, California…
We are warned that the weakest way to attack an argument we disagree with is to disparage the author of that idea. So avoid ad hominem attacks – to the man. But in this case, things are different. The argument is actually with the man himself. I’ve tried to keep up with Dr. Drazen’s many splendored bad ideas and arrogance. Ornstein does a better job than I could of cataloging the facts in the case [did I mention that it’s a must-read]. But over and above Dr. Jeffrey Drazen’s bad ideas, and his barely veiled nasty temperament, he’s just not New England Journal of Medicine Editor material. He’s been there for a long time, but now he’s let the cat out of the bag. He needs to go. That’s simply that…
Go down to the bottom of the comments on that piece and look at Ronamec’s options 1&2. I suspect most physicians use the option 1 lens for most of the major journals.
When will we read the last refuge of a scoundrel, that anyone who disagrees with the journal is a racist….
The way to make this problem go away is to cancel subscriptions…just like the APA and AMA..who “respects” them anymore after DSM and ICD-10 anyway?
Way too many institutions are living off of past glory…
except everyone knew Willie Mays as a Met was done…now we just pretend…and elect Kobe Bryant to the All Star game…Damian Lillard was objectively better by far but he didn’t have the brand
Baby boomers love their “brands” and lack imagination.
1bom, Have you seen the recent Schizophrenia piece in the New Yorker? Have only skimmed it, but I think Lieberman figures prominently. May take me a while to get past that and read it in detail. You may not have that same block.
Thanks for sending it. The science is beyond my pay grade, but the author is quite a writer. Lieberman is an aside at best…