This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2304.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Much has been written of late concerning conflicts of interest on the part of authors submitting their work to medical journals.^1-4 The public rightfully expects that medical editors will endeavor to avoid publishing work that is tainted by economic influences or other conflicts of interest. The potential also exists for conflicts of interest on the part of editors assessing the work that is submitted to medical journals. While this latter point has been addressed by others,⁵ remarkably little has been written on this topic.

Our recently introduced new editorial team⁶ is committed to the principle of impartial judgment about the merits of a manuscript. This is a principle on which peer review medical publishing depends. In the same way that it is necessary for all authors’ submissions, impartiality is necessary for the occasions when members of the editorial team or their close associates submit manuscripts to the ARCHIVES. . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Philip Greenland, MD