FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4235726805> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4235726805 endingPage "983" @default.
• W4235726805 startingPage "983" @default.
• W4235726805 abstract "Two of medicine's most powerful journals, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), are under withering attack. Rather unfairly, some would say that it's about time too. Richard Smith has recently been reincarnated as the scourge of the indecent and incredulous. He has used his new found freedom in the pages of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine to claim that the NEJM has been “damaged” by serious editorial “lapses”. His case is based on the NEJM's embarrassment over its allegedly wayward handling of the Vioxx controversy. Smith attacked the NEJM's editor, Jeff Drazen, for what the journal supposedly knew of the drug before publishing an expression of concern about key clinical trial data in 2005. Smith called Drazen's behaviour “lamentable”, and the journal's actions “slow” and “poor practice”. JAMA and its editor, Catherine DeAngelis, have also come under fire. The Wall Street Journal recently documented what the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) called “a major failure” by the authors of one JAMA study. CSPI claimed that JAMA “does not evaluate conflict of interest disclosures”. Authors “feel they can ignore the journal's policy with impunity”. CSPI called on JAMA and other medical journals to impose a 3-year ban on authors who breach conflict of interest rules. DeAngelis argues that JAMA's policies are sound and that she and her editors cannot act as a police force. She has been quoted as saying that her demand for independent statistical analysis of clinical trials is “costing us” in terms of papers and advertising. But a respected past editor of the NEJM, Jerome P Kassirer, has suggested that JAMA's procedures are “sloppy”. DeAngelis went on record to complain that her policies were being “misinterpreted, misrepresented, or misunderstood”. She expressed disappointment about the way her actions had been received. She is against sanctions, preferring instead to blame, name, and shame authors. It seems a little rich for JAMA to cry wolf at criticism. Every week the journal publishes critiques of others in its editorial pages. Now it is the turn of others to focus their attention on JAMA. That's simply fair comment. But JAMA and NEJM are not the worst offenders among journals. As a recent report in the Boston Globe pointed out, publications such as the American Journal of Cardiology thrive on close relations with pharmaceutical companies. Yet doctors don't seem to care. Why is that?" @default.
• W4235726805 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4235726805 creator A5001138777 @default.
• W4235726805 date "2006-09-01" @default.
• W4235726805 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W4235726805 title "Cuttings" @default.
• W4235726805 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69400-2" @default.
• W4235726805 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16980100" @default.
• W4235726805 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W4235726805 type Work @default.
• W4235726805 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4235726805 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4235726805 hasAuthorship W4235726805A5001138777 @default.
• W4235726805 hasBestOaLocation W42357268051 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConcept C2776716606 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConcept C3017579018 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConceptScore W4235726805C151719136 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConceptScore W4235726805C15744967 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConceptScore W4235726805C17744445 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConceptScore W4235726805C199539241 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConceptScore W4235726805C2776716606 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConceptScore W4235726805C3017579018 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConceptScore W4235726805C512399662 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConceptScore W4235726805C71924100 @default.
• W4235726805 hasConceptScore W4235726805C77805123 @default.
• W4235726805 hasIssue "9540" @default.
• W4235726805 hasLocation W42357268051 @default.
• W4235726805 hasLocation W42357268052 @default.
• W4235726805 hasOpenAccess W4235726805 @default.
• W4235726805 hasPrimaryLocation W42357268051 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W1595684333 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W1982912869 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W2129938449 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W2262224030 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W2352616656 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W2373867592 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W2468445463 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W2495899713 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W4238382091 @default.
• W4235726805 hasRelatedWork W4280543115 @default.
• W4235726805 hasVolume "368" @default.
• W4235726805 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4235726805 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4235726805 workType "article" @default.