Insulin Glargine Controversy: A Tribute to the Editorial Team at Diabetologia

Abstract

Progress in biomedical research is documented in journals after peer review, a process with flaws but the best we have. Once an article is published, in general it faces three fates. Most commonly, after some measure of initial interest, it quietly slips into obscurity, only occasionally to resurface if cited by a vigilant successor who recognizes the prior contribution to a once again advancing field. A quick glance through a copy of any major medical journal published ≥50 years ago is a humbling experience for any active scientist. Many of the confidently stated conclusions, with hindsight, were quite simply wrong. How many of our conclusions today will seem mildly amusing to a reader 50 years from now? Occasionally, an article makes a tremendously important contribution that advances a field and is widely cited, becoming a so-called citation classic with little controversy. Reading such a paper that is ≥50 years old can also be a humbling experience. How did the authors have such insight from what we now consider an incomplete dataset obtained by insensitive and nonspecific methods compared with those available to us now? It was clear to the editorial team …