Chest Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Siegler, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Siegler, M.
(Chest. 2006;129:1395-1396.)
© 2006 American College of Chest Physicians

Should Editorials in Peer-Reviewed Journals Be Signed?

Peter J. Smith, MD, MA; G. Caleb Alexander, MD, MS and Mark Siegler, MD

Chicago, IL
Dr. Smith is affiliated with the Department of Pediatrics, and Drs. Alexander and Siegler with the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago. Dr. Alexander is also affiliated with the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, The University of Chicago. All three authors are affiliated with the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, The University of Chicago.

Correspondence to: G. Caleb Alexander, MD, MS, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, The University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland, MC 2007, Chicago, IL 60637; e-mail: galexand{at}uchicago.edu

The process of authorship of research reports in peer-reviewed, scientific journals is increasingly transparent.12 This transparency has been encouraged both to highlight authors’ potential conflicts of interest and to ensure that authorship is offered to those whose contributions merit authorship. This shift toward greater transparency is regarded as a positive development that increases objectivity and truthfulness in scientific publications. Despite these changes, less consideration has been given to the status of unsigned editorials written by members of the editorial board of the journal. Although some journals have policies prohibiting the publication of unsigned editorials, others do not. Here we consider arguments in favor of and against unsigned editorials.

Arguments in Favor of Unsigned Editorials

Unsigned editorials allow editorials to reflect the collective viewpoint of the journal rather than those of individuals. This is analogous to newspaper editorials that reflect the views of the editorial staff, whose names are listed on the masthead. According to this reasoning, unsigned pieces are meant to serve a different function from signed commentaries: they tell readers where the newspaper or medical journal stands as an institution, and if signed, they would cease to perform this function. Also, unsigned editorials encourage focusing on substance, rather than on personalities, in a discussion or debate. In doing so, they avoid biasing the views of readers in favor of or against the claims being made. A final argument for unsigned editorials is that by maintaining author anonymity, authors are protected from academic or financial reprisals. This enables a journal to offer a more honest and open comment than would otherwise be possible.

Arguments Against Unsigned Editorials

Unsigned editorials violate the new spirit of transparency that is designed to minimize potential conflicts of interest and to place responsibility on authors in scientific journals. For example, unsigned editorials may lead to excessive criticism or praise if one knows that one will not be held publicly accountable for the statements. Most journals do not publish unsigned letters to the editor precisely for this reason.34 Also, unsigned editorials in a journal may falsely endow an opinion piece with greater authority than it would otherwise have, especially if only one or several members of the editorial board prepare the text. Finally, scientific journals are different from newspapers, which continue to use unsigned editorials. Readers of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal know the editorial views of these newspapers on many social, cultural, political, and even scientific issues. Similarly, since science is not value-free, the editors of scientific journals may have points of view about many of these issues, for example, using embryonic stem cells for research. It is not acceptable, however, for scientific journals to have a collective and anonymous editorial point of view about questions that should be judged at least in part based on their scientific merit. For example, if editors choose to publish a scientific article, and to write an editorial about the article, such editorials should not be written anonymously, but should be signed by the authors of the editorial.

Conclusion

While there are modest benefits for maintaining a policy of unsigned scientific editorials, these are outweighed by the costs and harms of such a policy. Avoiding anonymity in scientific editorials will improve the transparency of the system of publication and discussion. Most leading medical journals now publish only signed editorials. Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, has stated that "[S]cience is progressively moving away from anonymity. Anonymous editorials in scientific journals were common a decade ago; now they look anachronistic."5 We agree.

References

  1. Editorial Policy Committee (and reviewed by the Executive Committee) of the World Association of Medical Editors. Responsibilities of medical editors. Available at: http://www.wame.org/wamestmt.htm. Accessed March 27, 2006
  2. Hoey, J Who wrote this paper anyway? The new Vancouver Group statement refines the definition of authorship. CMAJ 2000;163,716-717[Free Full Text]
  3. Albert, DM, Liesegang, TJ, Schachat, AP Meeting our ethical obligations in medical publishing. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123,684-686[Free Full Text]
  4. Gaeta, TJ Authorship: "law" and order. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6,297-301[Medline]
  5. Smith, R Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999;318,4-5[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 BMJHome page
Minerva
BMJ, July 22, 2006; 333(7560): 208 - 208.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
R. S. Irwin
In the Spirit of Full Disclosure
Chest, June 1, 2006; 129(6): 1395 - 1395.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Siegler, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Siegler, M.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS