Dear Colleagues,

What are the lessons of the recent CMAJ episode?

1. Journals and Editors, for all their uprightness and scientific merit, since they are under the thumb of Associations and their office bearers, are always walking a tight rope. Whenever they appear inconvenient to the latter beyond a point, they will always be summarily dismissed.

2. The outcry, loud and impassioned, will as surely abate, because it lacks the teeth to convert its anger into collective action.

3. The Editors will lose any battle in this fight, for the odds are stacked against them. This in spite of the fact that they are on the right side.

4. History will continue to repeat itself.

                                                And some realisations:

1. Every fight for editorial independence by upright editors, even when they are sacked, is eventually for the good. For, in the wake of the outcry, managements have to spell out with greater clarity where and when will they intercede. This itself is a significant step. For example, JOC (Journal Oversight Committees) were set up in the wake of the JAMA and NEJM affairs. Even the CMAJ episode has seen the JOC play a role, although not that worthy a role as many would have wished. But then, probably that is the fate of all middlemen. Liable to be lashed from both sides. Ultimately, with every such action, although a battle in the form of an editor sacked is lost, the war for editorial independence is being won. It may sound paradoxical, but it is surprisingly true.
2. Associations, which own journals, will have to decide to give up ownership rights over journals. This must come sooner or later, and the sooner the better. The financial and other logistics have to be worked out, of course. But most prestigious journals manage to earn revenues for themselves too, so it is not as formidable a task as may first appear.
   

Ajai Singh
Editor, Mens Sana Monographs
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is it true that editors are always on the right side?

Surely the problem is that there are three (and possibly more) conflicting interests to safeguard: political, commercial, and editorial. All are justifiable and necessary, and the solution is to have good—and open—mechanisms in place to ensure that the needs of the various groups are all met as far as possible.

Tim Albert
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. I agree. Of course editors are not always on the right side. But surely you are not hinting the fired editors were in the wrong in the CMAJ episode? They may have rubbed some powerful people on the wrong side, but that hardly makes them wrong. Or does it?
2. I agree again there are conflicting interests to safeguard. All are necessary, in fact essential, for a journal's viability. All is fine till they do not come in conflict. What when they do? The crucial issue is, which gets priority? The political? The commercial? Or the Editorial? (By editorial, I take it, we mainly mean scientific content and credibility issues.) 

This is the crux of the matter.

Often we convince ourselves editorial issues need to be toned down to make way for the other two. That may make for smart, pliant editors. And job security. But it makes for equally poor editorial, and journal, credibility. Then we can hardly blame anyone, but ourselves, if a conscientious editor loses his job. For he erred in being conscientious to the extent of irking powerful forces which could decide to cut short his run. So what if the run was for the good, so what it served the interests of biomedical advance? Which only goes to prove that the next time around too, an upright editor will lose his job. For the odds are stacked against him.