We all know, mostly by our personal experience, how biased are these publication houses. There are bundles of articles published in very reputed journals, which are in fact doesn't have any practical use or are simply lacking originality, but are published because they are either sponsored or coming from reputed institution. 

The truth is Medical publication needs to be revolutionize.

Regards

Kaushal

__________________________________________
Dr Kaushal K Tiwari, MD (Hons), MS, IMCS, PhD
Cardiac Surgeon
The Salam Center for Cardiac Surgery
A Project of "Emergency" iNGO
Soba Hilla, Khartoum
Sudan
Mobile - +249969287841

Sent from my iPad

On 25/set/2013, at 16:55, Jordan Panayotov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Mayer,

I have realized that academic publishing has become predominantly (if not exclusively) an instrument for getting public money (grants). Other goals, such as improving health of whole populations, for example, have become at best collateral benefit. Currently, in this process objectivity and/or constructive criticism play little or no role, or, as it is in your case, are not welcomed.

The whole system needs a complete overhaul.

Jordan

********
Jordan Panayotov, MEc, MPH (Health Economics)
Director
Independent Centre for Analysis & Research of Economies
Melbourne, Australia
www.icare.biz
[log in to unmask]    

 

Chair
Global Working Group on Climate Change and Health
IUHPE
www.iuhpe.org

 

=============
Important Notice:
This message and its attachments are confidential and may contain information which is protected by copyright. It is intended solely for the named addressee.  If you are not the authorised recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the authorised recipient), you must not use, disclose, print, copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete this message and its attachments from your system.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">Mayer Brezis

To: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]

Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:14 PM

Subject: Lack of virtual space for criticism

 

Hi:

 

I wish to share with this group a frustrating rejection by an editorial office to publish a letter criticizing methods and conclusion of a published article – because of “lack of space”.  Isn’t the argument " lack of space" preposterous, anachronistic and patronizingly outrageous when space is virtual?  (or mostly limited by ads in a printed version). The rejected letter is copied below but my general question is about a proper policy for medical journals: shouldn’t they encourage free exchange of criticism (as the BMJ)?

Thanks,

Mayer

 

Mayer Brezis, MD MPH
Professor of Medicine
Director, Center for Clinical Quality & Safety
Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center
Jerusalem, Israel
Office phone 02-6777110; cellular 050-787-4596

Website

 

The letter:

 

We question the authors’ conclusion that an intensive lifestyle intervention does not reduce cardiovascular events among overweight diabetic patients.1 As their results included a subgroup analysis for patients with cardiovascular disease at baseline, this interpretation seems to contradict consistent > 25% reductions in all-cause and cardiac mortality as well in cardiac morbidity from a systematic review of 23 trials on lifestyle modification in 11,085 randomized coronary heart disease patients.2 The paper reveals no information on the effect of the intervention on actual physical activity (pedometers were given to patients but data are not shown). Physical fitness was low, somewhat increased for a couple of years and then reverted to baseline, but is not reported for most of the ensuing years. Since adherence appears to have been low, a per-protocol analysis might have enriched our understanding beyond an intention-to-treat analysis. As for medications, poor adherence is common and deserves better accounting.3 We suggest rephrasing the conclusion to say that a limited lifestyle intervention focused on weight loss had little impact of cardiovascular events.

 

Naama Constantini, MD, DFM, FACSM, Dip. Sport Med. (CASM) Mayer Brezis, MD, MPH Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center Jerusalem, Israel

Robert Sallis, MD Department of Family Medicine and Sports Medicine Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Fontana, CA, USA

 

1. The Look AHEAD Research Group. Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2013;369:145-54.

2. Janssen V, Gucht VD, Dusseldorp E, Maes S. Lifestyle modification programmes for patients with coronary heart disease : a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2013;20:620-40.

3. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. New England Journal of Medicine 2005;353:487-97.   

 

 

Editor’s response:

 

I am sorry that we will not be able to print your recent letter to the editor regarding the Wing article of 11-Jul-2013.  The space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received.  Many worthwhile communications must be declined for lack of space.

 

Thank you for your interest in the Journal.

 

Sincerely,

 

Deputy Editor

 

New England Journal of Medicine

10 Shattuck Street

Boston, MA 02115

(617) 734-9800

Fax: (617) 739-9864

http://www.nejm.org