主页 > 医学讨论 >
【社会人文】（ScienceNOW）《新英格兰医学杂志》
By Jocelyn Kaiser
ScienceNOW Daily News
1 April 2008
In the second such ruling in the past month, a federal judge in Boston, Massachusetts, yesterday turned down a drug company's request to obtain peer-review documents from a major medical journal. The judge agreed in a 31 March decision that forcing the journal to release the information would harm the integrity of the peer-review process.
The case stems from lawsuits filed by consumers and health care providers against Pfizer involving two arthritis drugs sold by the company that have been linked to serious side effects. Last year, Pfizer issued subpoenas seeking peer-review documents and unpublished manuscripts from several journals that had published studies on the drugs, including the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). In January, the company sued JAMA and NEJM to force them to comply.
The editors of both journals argued that releasing the documents would harm the peer-review process, which relies on confidentiality so that reviewers will feel free to be candid. Last month, a judge in Chicago, Illinois, agreed with JAMA and denied Pfizer's request (ScienceNOW, 14 March).
Now NEJM has won its case, too, winding up the matter for these two leading journals. Unlike the Chicago court, Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts agreed that information Pfizer wanted--which the company had narrowed to anonymous comments provided to authors--could be relevant to the company's defense. But Sorokin found that "the NEJM's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the peer review process is a very significant one ... and tip [sic] the scales in favor of the NEJM." NEJM's editors said in a statement that they are "pleased that the confidentiality of the peer-review process remains intact."
http://science.originalsignal.com/article/59453/new-england-journal-of-medicine-wins-peer-review-court-case.html 自已认领，48小时后若未提交译文，请其他战友自由认领。
《New England Journal of Medicine Wins Peer-Review Court Case
《新英格兰医学杂志》赢得同行评审诉讼案
By Jocelyn Kaiser
ScienceNOW Daily News
1 April 2008
In the second such ruling in the past month, a federal judge in Boston, Massachusetts, yesterday turned down a drug company's request to obtain peer-review documents from a major medical journal. The judge agreed in a 31 March decision that forcing the journal to release the information would harm the integrity of the peer-review process.星期一，马萨诸塞州波士顿的联邦法官在上过月第二次类似的判决中，拒绝了药物公司获取一家主要的医学杂志的同行评审人员的文件。３月３１日的判决认为强迫杂志公布这些信息将危害同行评审的程序。
The case stems from lasuits filed by consumers and health care providers against Pfizer involving two arthritis drugs sold by the company that have been linked to serious side effects. Last year, Pfizer issued subpoenas seeking peer-review documents and unpublished manuscripts from several journals that had published studies on the drugs, including the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). In January, the company sued JAMA and NEJM to force them to comply.案件起源于顾客与医疗服务人员抗议辉瑞公司出售的两种关节炎药物，它们有可能导致严重的副作用。去年，辉瑞公司发出传审，要求从包括《新英格兰医学杂志》《美国医学会杂志》等发表了对这些药物研究的几家医学杂志中获取同行评审的文件与手稿。一月份，辉瑞制药公司对JAMA和NEJM提起诉讼，要求他们执行。
The editors of both journals argued that releasing the documents would harm the peer-review process, which relies on confidentiality so that reviewers will feel free to be candid. Last month, a judge in Chicago, Illinois, agreed with JAMA and denied Pfizer's request (ScienceNOW, 14 March). 两家杂志的主编都认为公布这些文件将危害同行评审的程序，正因为保密才使得评审人员可以公正的评审。上个月，伊利诺斯州芝加哥的法官赞成JAMA的观点，拒绝辉瑞制药的请求。
Now NEJM has won its case, too, winding up the matter for these two leading journals. Unlike the Chicago court, Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts agreed that information Pfizer wanted--which the company had narrowed to anonymous comments provided to authors--could be relevant to the company's defense. But Sorokin found that "the NEJM's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the peer review process is a very significant one ... and tip [sic] the scales in favor of the NEJM." NEJM's editors said in a statement that they are "pleased that the confidentiality of the peer-review process remains intact." 现在NEJM也赢得了官司，两家主要杂志的官司已经结束。与芝加哥地方行政法院法官不同的是，马萨诸塞州地区法院Leo Sorokin法官同意辉瑞制药的获取信息——公司只要求得到匿名作者的评论，这些可能与公司的辩护相关。但是Leo Sorokin法官发现“NEJM杂志保障评审过程的绝密性是非常重要的……侵向于支持NEJM。”NEJM的编辑在一份声明中说“请不要损害同行评审过程的机密性。”
阅读本文的人还阅读：
作者:admin@医学,生命科学 2010-12-12 06:42
医学,生命科学网