Wilkes M S, Kravitz R L
Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles 90024-1736, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 1995 Aug;10(8):443-50. doi: 10.1007/BF02599916.
To describe U.S. and Canadian medical journals, their editors, and policies that affect the dissemination of medical information.
Mailed survey.
Senior editors of all 269 leading medical journals published at least quarterly in the United States and Canada, of whom 221 (82%) responded.
The questionnaire asked about characteristics of journal editors and their journals and about journals' policies toward peer review, conflicts of interest, prepublication discussions with the press, and pharmaceutical advertisements.
The editors were overwhelmingly men (96%), middle-aged (mean age 61 years), and trained as physicians (82%). Although 98% claimed that their journals were "peer-reviewed," the editors differed in how they defined a "peer" and in the number of peers they deemed optimal for review. Sixty-three percent thought journals should check on reviewers' potential conflicts of interest, but only a minority supported masking authors' names and affiliations (46%), checking reviewers' financial conflicts of interest (40%), or revealing reviewers' names to authors (8%). The respondents advocated discussion of scientific findings with the press (84%), but only in accord with the Ingelfinger rule, i.e., after publication of the article (77%). Fifty-seven percent of the editors agreed that journals have a responsibility to ensure the truthfulness of pharmaceutical advertisements, and 40% favored subjecting advertisements to the same rigorous peer review as scientific articles.
The responding editors were relatively homogeneous demographically and professionally, and they tended to support the editorial status quo. There was little sentiment in favor of tampering with the current peer-review system (however defined) or the Ingelfinger rule, but a surprisingly large percentage of the respondents favored more stringent review of drug advertisements.
描述美国和加拿大的医学期刊、其编辑以及影响医学信息传播的政策。
邮寄调查。
美国和加拿大至少每季度出版一期的所有269种主要医学期刊的高级编辑，其中221人（82%）回复。
问卷询问了期刊编辑及其期刊的特征，以及期刊在同行评审、利益冲突、与媒体的预发表讨论和药品广告方面的政策。
编辑绝大多数为男性（96%），中年（平均年龄61岁），且接受过医师培训（82%）。尽管98%的人声称他们的期刊是“同行评审”的，但编辑们在如何定义“同行”以及他们认为最佳的同行评审人数方面存在差异。63%的人认为期刊应该核查评审人员的潜在利益冲突，但只有少数人支持隐匿作者姓名和单位（46%）、核查评审人员的经济利益冲突（40%）或向作者透露评审人员姓名（8%）。受访者主张与媒体讨论科学发现（84%），但仅符合英格尔芬格规则，即文章发表后（77%）。57%的编辑同意期刊有责任确保药品广告的真实性，40%的人赞成对广告进行与科学文章相同严格的同行评审。
回复的编辑在人口统计学和专业方面相对同质化，他们倾向于支持编辑现状。几乎没有支持干预当前同行评审系统（无论如何定义）或英格尔芬格规则的意见，但令人惊讶的是，很大比例的受访者赞成对药品广告进行更严格的评审。
