Ombudsman's eighth report

Abstract

Five cases were received in the past 12 months, all referred directly by the complainants. All the complaints related to editorial procedures and in some instances to editorial decisions, even though these fall outside the Ombudsman's remit. 1 Horton R The Lancet's Ombudsman. Lancet. 1996; 348: 6 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (25) Google Scholar Each complaint is briefly summarised in the panel. Additional comments relating to cases 2, 3, and 4 follow. PanelComplaints from July, 2003, to June, 2004 1Letter, critical of a recently published article, initially rejected. Representations made to The Lancet and letter sent to the article's author for opinion. Further editorial considerations made in light of comments received. Earlier decision to reject letter upheld. Procedures found to be expeditious and unbiased. Complaint rejected. 2Two commentaries commissioned by The Lancet, subsequently rejected on grounds of potential conflict of interest. This conflict was known at time of commission but deemed to be insignificant; conclusion later recognised to be at odds with journal's policy on this issue. Errors in editorial process admitted. Complaint upheld. 3Protocol for clinical trial accepted after external review. Subsequent paper rejected mainly because of new reservations about methodology not identified in review of protocol (nb, no major deviations from original protocol found). Anomalous situation, but editorial procedures judged to be appropriate. Complaint rejected. 4Paper rejected after two appeals. Editorial procedures followed correctly throughout and all reviewers' comments transmitted. Authors' complaint that “the appeals process is opaque” endorsed. Complaint partly upheld. 5Charge of racial bias in one of pair of film reviews dealing with aspects of medical emergency services in Israel and Palestine. Concluded that editors were scrupulous in dealing with this controversial material with no evidence of individual racial or religious bias. Complaint rejected. 1Letter, critical of a recently published article, initially rejected. Representations made to The Lancet and letter sent to the article's author for opinion. Further editorial considerations made in light of comments received. Earlier decision to reject letter upheld. Procedures found to be expeditious and unbiased. Complaint rejected. 2Two commentaries commissioned by The Lancet, subsequently rejected on grounds of potential conflict of interest. This conflict was known at time of commission but deemed to be insignificant; conclusion later recognised to be at odds with journal's policy on this issue. Errors in editorial process admitted. Complaint upheld. 3Protocol for clinical trial accepted after external review. Subsequent paper rejected mainly because of new reservations about methodology not identified in review of protocol (nb, no major deviations from original protocol found). Anomalous situation, but editorial procedures judged to be appropriate. Complaint rejected. 4Paper rejected after two appeals. Editorial procedures followed correctly throughout and all reviewers' comments transmitted. Authors' complaint that “the appeals process is opaque” endorsed. Complaint partly upheld. 5Charge of racial bias in one of pair of film reviews dealing with aspects of medical emergency services in Israel and Palestine. Concluded that editors were scrupulous in dealing with this controversial material with no evidence of individual racial or religious bias. Complaint rejected.