- Health Care Renewal: JAMA Editors Try Attacking the Messenger – Interesting blow-by-blow of a multi-journal dispute over conflict of interest of an author of an article. Is it possible that these arguments are becoming less and less relevant in a post-peer-review world?
Health Care Renewal: JAMA Editors Try Attacking the Messenger
April 1st, 2009 by Ted Eytan | Popularity: 19% 2 comments
Posted in del.icio.us bookmarks | Popularity: 19% | 
Email This
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 Feed.
You can leave a response , or trackback from your own site.
Okay, I’ll bite – what’s a post-peer-review world? Can you give me some persuasive word-cookie to pass along to people who think peer review is still what it takes to get credibility?
I’m serious – what are you seeing that a lot of people aren’t?
Dave,
We are already in the post-peer-review world. You experience it daily on the ACOR kidney cancer list. Much of the truly relevant information comes from sources such as this blog or from personal communications from online communities. There is no peer-review process involved here but the new system of user ratings. It allows imediate publishing stories like your important story about the current problems of EHRs/PHRs. In the peer-reviewed time, we would have had to wait 18 months to see that story.
That’s why DeAngelis and JAMA represent a fast sinking whale. They are making themselves irrelevant faster than anyone else could have done, by rejecting true transparency and responsibility in this very sad story