That’s what Dr. Adrienne Fugh-Berman of the Georgetown University School of Medicine says. Writing in PLoS Medicine, she and two grad students did some studies of the advertising content in major medical journals. Their recommendation is that the journals get rid of all pharmaceutical company advertising, and they suggest that it be replaced with what they call “lifestyle” advertising….travel, cars, investments…the kind of thing you might see if you were flipping through a business mag, maybe one like Fortune. Talk like that tends to make publishers and editors nervous, since drug company ads bring in a lot of boodle. Dr. Fugh-Berman’s group thinks that much of the revenue lost by killing off drug ads could be recouped through cultivation of other advertisers, who may not realize that medical journals are read in many cases by people who have some disposeable income, as the phrase goes. Once they catch on, the ad revenues will perk up and the journals will be fine, fiscally. Doctor readers will not be exposed to misleading, partial and spun advertisements, which the investigators think would be a real improvement. And journals would regain some much-needed editorial independence. The Fugh-Berman group also thinks that the adds themselves are misleading, and physicians who see them may not always be able to distinguish good from not so good articles offered in support of the product. A misleading Ad! What next in the Decline of Civilization as We Know It! But, joshing aside, mabe Dr. F-B is onto something. Maybe some pitches for rent villas in Tuscanny or Aspen would be better.
Advertising

Charvey Narain did exactly that, and writes about it in LabLit. Narain was a bench researcher in neuroscience, with some interesting ideas about how the brain does stuff that it does. He was also busy in other areas, such as advising the BBC on a science documentary it was producing. Narain had the usual feelings of frustration and annoyance when his epochal, paradigm-shaking publications were bounced back to him, with indecent haste, and a terse note from a superior Being called, The Editor. As it happened, a job ad for an editorial position at Nature Neuroscience came his way, and, on a lark as the British say, he answered it. One thing leading to another, as things often do, he got the job and now works on the Other Side of the publication process. He seems to enjoy the change: the research side is very specialized and intense, with little chance for broader views or synthetic appreciations. Each experiment has its own logic of why’s and how-can -it -be- that’s, so synthesis is something left for the later that never comes. Narain enjoys the task of finding good papers that seem to contribute to the elucidation of important problems. And, the view is a good deal broader in the editoral office than at the bench. Oh, yeah, he also found out that most editors were not members of the SS, and do not have cloven hooves. Most. Read about it;
Editor
NOTE: Jennifer Rohn of LabLit messaged me withthis comment:
Thanks for the kind words about our article on lablit.com from Charvy Narain, but it’s worth noting that Charvy is in fact a woman! (When in doubt, the latest stats suggest that 80% of people in science publishing are female, especially at the lower ranks, so if you have to guess, better to err on the side of the X chromosomes…)
To which I sent this reply:
Ms. Rohn
Please accept my grovelling apologies! I found your message this morning, and re-read the LabLit story. Of course there is absolutely nothing in it to suggest, much less require, that the writer be a man. I’m grateful to you for the correction, and for the interesting information about the proportion of women in science publishing. My first reaction to your message was to rewrite the post, but, on second thought, I decided to leave it and simply add your message and my reply to the story, on a Cromwellian “warts and all” approach to blogging. I enjoy LabLit very much and wish you continued success with it.
With good wishes and apologies,
The Blogging Grouch, aka, Alex Bienkowski, Chief Perpetrator of LibraryLink

Dr. John Hoey was recently sacked as editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), a fact reported in these lines a while ago. Dr. Hoey was given a chance to state his views on the matter of his dismissal, and was given a bully pulpit for it too. The New England Journal of Medicine in the May 11 issue, published what might be considered a guest editorial, on the topic of editors’ independence, and the need for medical journals to speak out on matters that some would consider “political” and therefore “inappropriate”, in today’s weasel-speak. One can differ on the merits of the Hoey canning, but the piece in the NEJM is worth a read because it is not a rant on the injustice, real or putative, of the action so much as it is a reflection on the changed status of scientific and medical publications in the world of the Internet/Web. Dr. Hoey says, and he ought to know, that the CMAJ broke out long ago from being the printed organ of a professional medical society with limited, even provincial concerns and outlook , and moved onto an international stage, since it is widely read outside Canada, and attracts contributors from many countries. He thinks publishers need to widen their views, and be less concerned with accepted publishing business models. Here is the link:

CMAJ