ISSN 1662-4009 (online)

ESPE Yearbook of Paediatric Endocrinology (2018) 15 15.10 | DOI: 10.1530/ey.15.15.10

ESPEYB15 15 Editor’s Choice Slow down and think! (1 abstracts)

15.10 The Rush to Publication: An Editorial and Scientific Mistake

Bauchner H


Editor in Chief, and The JAMA Network, Chicago, Illinois, USA


To read the full abstract: JAMA 2017;318:1109-1110

Here, Howard Bauchner provides a thoughtful article on the increasing rush to publishing science. As authors and readers, there are many apparent benefits. Over the past 5 years, the time from manuscript submission to article publication has halved for all JAMA journals. However, there are also major pitfalls, including the reduced time for manuscript review and identification of mistakes, which can appear obvious with slightly longer consideration. He gives the example of a study that created stem cells using chemical stimulation, which was retracted within months post-publication.

Other recent high-profile retractions followed the remarkable analyses of published trials by a UK anaesthetist, working on his own in a small seaside hospital and without any background in academia (1). By assessing the (im)probability of the distributions of baseline variables in reported trials, John Carlisle identified several with fabricated or manipulated data, not only within his own field’s journal Anaesthesia, but also in high profile journals NEJM and JAMA. This led to a recent retraction, and corrected re-analysis of the famous PREDIMED trial (2), to date the only RCT of the Mediterranean diet on cardiovascular disease, in which, we now learn, a large proportion were allocated rather than randomized to the treatment arms.

Bauchner, who is the Editor in Chief at JAMA, argues that the fault lies collectively with us all, rather than only with the journals. Whether we are journal editors, investigators, funders, or professional societies, we all want our papers to be reviewed and published as quickly as possible, and we even highlight late-breaking science sessions at our scientific conferences. Much of the onus to detect irregularities lies in the peer review process, which is often pressured by tight deadlines and very regular automated email reminders.

1. Carlisle JB. Data fabrication and other reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals. Anaesthesia 2017;72:944-952.

2. Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvado J, Covas MI, Corella D, Aros F, Gomez-Gracia E, Ruiz-Gutierrez V, Fiol M, Lapetra J, Lamuela-Raventos RM, Serra-Majem L, Pinto X, Basora J, Munoz MA, Sorli JV, Martinez JA, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Retraction and Republication: Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1279-90. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 21;378(25):2441-2442.

Article tools

My recent searches

No recent searches.

My recently viewed abstracts