Despite all of the laudatory comments praising the formation of the JADA Industry Advisory Board ("JADA Unveils Industry Advisory Board," News, May JADA), the proposed collaboration is a very bad idea for JADA and does ethical disservice to the profession of dentistry.
According to JADA Editor Marjorie Jeffcoat, the Board will serve to expedite publication of submissions from dental manufacturers to "enhance" delivery of new product information to practicing dentists.
There is little comfort in Dr. Jeffcoat’s assurances that "these are not intended to be advertisements but will be peer-reviewed articles for the practitioner."
It is most surprising that the editor seems unaware of the many, well-documented shortcomings of the peer-review process. In fact, The Journal of the American Medical Association devoted its entire June 5 issue to the numerous problems associated with peer review.1 Errors were common and "authors often failed to discuss limitations of their findings."2 Editorially, JAMA declared that the system is "prone to abuse."3
When interviewed by the Associated Press, JAMA Editor Catherine DeAngelis said that "problems are most likely to occur in research funded by drug companies, which have a vested interest in findings that make their products look good." Concern was expressed by journal editors "that manufacturers sometimes unduly influence how researchers report study results, and even suppress unfavorable findings."4
This is exactly what happened when it was disclosed that researchers reporting on cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (an antiarthritis treatment) had failed to provide complete research data in their article and repressed significant untoward information.5 The reviewers, therefore, did not have access to the raw data when they reviewed the manuscript.6 The then-published article was widely circulated and believed,5 apparently giving the product an unjustifiable competitive advantage.
It is quite possible that, in the future, as a result of manufacturer channeling and undue reliance on a flawed peer-review process, Dr. Jeffcoat may be placing the imprimatur of our highly respected journal inappropriately on marginal or highly suspect scientific articles.
Dr. Jeffcoat seems particularly eager to move "time-sensitive" product material to practitioners. In my 40 years of practice, it has not been my personal experience that manufacturers have ever had any difficulty communicating by any and all available means in a most timely manner. As do most dentists, I have filled closets with products that did not perform as anticipated. Personally, I would prefer that JADA and its Advisory Board fast-track information to us about products that don’t function as reported.
Finally, it must be pointed out that two-thirds of the members of the JADA Industry Advisory Board are employees of dental product manufacturers. While they may very well be outstanding individuals, it is their companies that put the clothes on their backs and the food on their tables. As a result, their primary allegiance must understandably be to their employers.
TOP
REFERENCES
