In the Spirit of Full Disclosure

Abstract

In the spirit of full disclosure, we declare that we invited Drs. Smith, Alexander, and Siegler to write the editorial entitled “Should Editorials in Peer-Reviewed Journals be Signed?”1Smith PJ Alexander GC Siegler M Should editorials in peer-reviewed journals be signed [editorial]?.Chest. 2006; 129: 1395-1396Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (5) Google Scholar to address ethical issues inherent to unsigned editorials. In doing so, we did not require them to reach any particular conclusion, and we indicated that we would be prepared to publish their submission, subject to peer review, regardless of the conclusions reached.We were stimulated to invite the editorial because the Editors of The Lancet published an editorial2Lancet. Cough guidelines choke on evidence [editorial].Lancet. 2006; 367: 276Google Scholar about the recently published American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines on the diagnosis and management of cough3American College of Chest Physicians Cough Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and management of cough: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.Chest. 2006; 129: 1S-292SAbstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (57) Google Scholar that was not flattering of the guidelines, the Cough Guidelines Writing Committee, the ACCP, and, indirectly, this journal; in addition, the editorial did not disclose who personally wrote it. In essence, it was an unsigned editorial.As a past president of the ACCP (from 2003 to 2004), Chair of the ACCP Evidence-Based Cough Clinical Practice Guideline Committee, and Editor in Chief of CHEST, I admit that I was surprised and took issue with much that was written in The Lancet editorial and, along with David Gutterman, Chair of the Health and Science Policy Committee of the ACCP, we addressed all of our issues in a letter to the editor of The Lancet.4Irwin RS Gutterman DD American College of Chest Physicians’ cough guidelines [letter].Lancet. 2006; 367: 981Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar In the climate of full disclosure, and when The Lancet requires that all clinical trials be registered before the first patient is enrolled and that each author of a letter to the editor declare that they have no conflict of interest, we would have preferred to have known who personally wrote the editorial that thought that the “Cough Guidelines Choke on Evidence” and that the Cough Guidelines Committee participated in a “hollow exercise.” We encourage you to read the editorial written by Drs. Smith, Alexander, and Siegler,1Smith PJ Alexander GC Siegler M Should editorials in peer-reviewed journals be signed [editorial]?.Chest. 2006; 129: 1395-1396Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (5) Google ScholarThe Lancet editorial2Lancet. Cough guidelines choke on evidence [editorial].Lancet. 2006; 367: 276Google Scholar and our response to it,4Irwin RS Gutterman DD American College of Chest Physicians’ cough guidelines [letter].Lancet. 2006; 367: 981Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar and the cough guidelines.3American College of Chest Physicians Cough Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and management of cough: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.Chest. 2006; 129: 1S-292SAbstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (57) Google Scholar Then, you be the judge: should editorials in peer-reviewed journals (in 2006) be signed? In the spirit of full disclosure, we declare that we invited Drs. Smith, Alexander, and Siegler to write the editorial entitled “Should Editorials in Peer-Reviewed Journals be Signed?”1Smith PJ Alexander GC Siegler M Should editorials in peer-reviewed journals be signed [editorial]?.Chest. 2006; 129: 1395-1396Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (5) Google Scholar to address ethical issues inherent to unsigned editorials. In doing so, we did not require them to reach any particular conclusion, and we indicated that we would be prepared to publish their submission, subject to peer review, regardless of the conclusions reached. We were stimulated to invite the editorial because the Editors of The Lancet published an editorial2Lancet. Cough guidelines choke on evidence [editorial].Lancet. 2006; 367: 276Google Scholar about the recently published American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines on the diagnosis and management of cough3American College of Chest Physicians Cough Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and management of cough: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.Chest. 2006; 129: 1S-292SAbstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (57) Google Scholar that was not flattering of the guidelines, the Cough Guidelines Writing Committee, the ACCP, and, indirectly, this journal; in addition, the editorial did not disclose who personally wrote it. In essence, it was an unsigned editorial. As a past president of the ACCP (from 2003 to 2004), Chair of the ACCP Evidence-Based Cough Clinical Practice Guideline Committee, and Editor in Chief of CHEST, I admit that I was surprised and took issue with much that was written in The Lancet editorial and, along with David Gutterman, Chair of the Health and Science Policy Committee of the ACCP, we addressed all of our issues in a letter to the editor of The Lancet.4Irwin RS Gutterman DD American College of Chest Physicians’ cough guidelines [letter].Lancet. 2006; 367: 981Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar In the climate of full disclosure, and when The Lancet requires that all clinical trials be registered before the first patient is enrolled and that each author of a letter to the editor declare that they have no conflict of interest, we would have preferred to have known who personally wrote the editorial that thought that the “Cough Guidelines Choke on Evidence” and that the Cough Guidelines Committee participated in a “hollow exercise.” We encourage you to read the editorial written by Drs. Smith, Alexander, and Siegler,1Smith PJ Alexander GC Siegler M Should editorials in peer-reviewed journals be signed [editorial]?.Chest. 2006; 129: 1395-1396Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (5) Google ScholarThe Lancet editorial2Lancet. Cough guidelines choke on evidence [editorial].Lancet. 2006; 367: 276Google Scholar and our response to it,4Irwin RS Gutterman DD American College of Chest Physicians’ cough guidelines [letter].Lancet. 2006; 367: 981Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar and the cough guidelines.3American College of Chest Physicians Cough Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and management of cough: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.Chest. 2006; 129: 1S-292SAbstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (57) Google Scholar Then, you be the judge: should editorials in peer-reviewed journals (in 2006) be signed?