Abstract
Comments on the original article "The ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5" by A. E. Skodol et al. (see record 2013-45025-004). Zimmerman comments that concerns about the openness of the revision process and the signing of confidentiality agreements have been raised regarding the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) revision. These confidentiality agreements are reminiscent of the types of agreements the pharmaceutical industry used to force investigators to sign before funding studies. At most academic institutions, such agreements have been prohibited for some time now. Hopefully, the DSM-5 confidentiality agreements do not constrain the behind the scenes descriptions of the revision process appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, such as the article by Skodol et al. If these agreements do, in fact, limit what the authors can write, then the authors should disclose this information in the same manner that authors of industry-funded studies must reveal their sources of financial support and conflicts of interest.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
