I am often concerned about the bigger picture of medical publishing. Sure, we create journals and other services, but do we really know if the information is of value to “end users”? If not, are we part of an industry that exists for the sake of its own existence? If that's the case, are we not in danger of becoming insular, worrying about preserving the status quo without seeing what really matters?

Every now and then we are forced to see the bigger picture and examine our role within it. That's just happened to me; I saw this article:

Reed-Elsevier's hypocrisy in selling arms and health http://www.rsmpress.co.uk/KA07-02-09.pdf (Richard Smith, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, FREE to access online.)

I won't paraphrase the article; you can read it for yourself. I don't work for Reed-Elsevier, and I'm sure that there are many wonderful people that do, but it occurs to me that there is something wrong with a company making money (and lots of it) from health, while making more money selling products that create ill-health. Isn't the point of medical publishing to improve healthcare? Sure, we need to make money, to stay afloat and invest in better products for end-users, but should the business practices described in the article really be associated with a medical publisher?

In the UK, there is increasing drive amongst consumers to make companies take responsibility for the impact they have on the world (their externalities, as economists call it). There is also some (but not as much) drive by employees to make their employers also consider their wider responsibilities. Personally, I think it would be wonderful if something similar happened in this scenario. Statements from WAME are fine, but easily ignored. What's needed is for those directly affected—the authors, reviewers and readers of the journals, and the employees of the company—to take a stand. But as Smith asks, who will take the lead?

I'm not suggesting it's easy; I just know that we are becoming increasingly aware of the inter-connected nature of life and business, and at some point we're going to have to take a stand. 

Pritpal S. Tamber
______________________________
How many mice, dogs, and monkeys are killed in researchers’ laboratories? Is not this step, for science, an important tool, but for humanity a sacrifice?

The weapons will be sold by Reed-Elsevier, or by someone else; the problem is that this someone else will not spend a centime for scientific research, but Reed Elsevier does. Then, do we want to lose the support of Reed-Elsevier? And if so, will we stop the sale of weapons?

I do not want to say that the human race has the same importance as the mice, dogs, and monkeys (thinking about hypocrisy), but I want to say that the weapons will be sold with or without Reed Elsevier, then draw, us also a beneficial profit for science as long as this giant of the weapons want it well. And if somebody can prove that 1+1 = 3, then one will be able to stop the sale of the weapons in this world!

Hnid Karim
_________________________________
Yes. I think we want to lose the support of Elsevier. If you are interested in my reasons, look over the editorial I wrote last year:

For the record: journal publishers and the arms trade Inj. Prev., Apr 2006;12:66.

Barry Pless
_____________________________________
I do not want to speak about politics, but I find it a little suspect to attack Reed Elsevier and lose their support in the medical field, yet continue to receive funding from governments that promote research and do worse things than sell weapons  (such as destabilizing countries and contributing to the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens every day)! Make what I say, but not what I make?

Hnid Karim
_____________________________________
In answer to Hnid Karim, in theory at least you can vote for governments. But what is interesting is Reed Elsevier's defence (Boycott publisher because of holding in arms trade, readers told in BMJ 334:389). No need to worry, they only sell the arms to governments who use them to preserve freedom and national security, which enables all us to go about our business in a free and open democratic society—would you believe?

Elise Langdon-Neuner
_____________________________________________
Although this is an interesting conversation, it seems to be straying from the goals of the WAME listserve, which (to me at least) should focus on our helping each other improve our editorial abilities and resources.

Bill Tierney
______________________________________
I beg to differ. The purpose of the listserve is of course to help with editorial abilities and resources. But our concern is also with larger issues in which publishers of journals and their acts of omission and commission cannot be glossed over.

Regarding said publisher  and their arms-trade links.

1. I think we have no business to per se believe that just because someone is in the arms trade, they are persona non grata. We need evidence that they indulge in clandestine arms deals with criminals, or support human rights violating regimes, or some such malafide activities.

To equate tobacco business with the arms trade is not proper, precisely because tobacco is proved to be deleterious to health. There is no condition of proper use of tobacco for health. Arms are necessary for national and personal security reasons. Their improper use is deleterious to populations and health. That improper use condition would apply to many other situations, too.

I am no apologist for the said publisher and their business concerns. But I think we are going a little overboard in casting aspersions on a publishing house simply because it runs a legitimate parallel business enterprise. Prove them indulging in shady deals, and then hang them. But not before.

2. Secondly, to expect every business house to listen to our advice in handling their business is giving ourselves more power than we can expect. We will be politely answered, and if we persist too much, quietly ignored.

3. Thirdly, for us to mount an offensive so that the said publisher ultimately walks out of journal publishing may not really serve the purpose of biomedical advance, for no one has proved they resort to underhand methods in publishing. In fact, they have some of the reputed, and, that too, well-deserved publications under their belt.

4. Fourthly, the very fact they may wish to keep their credibility in the scientific world will prevent them from crossing limits. Rather than journal publishing serving as the proverbial fig leaf, it will help keep them on the straight course.

It's of course important pressure be kept up by eternal vigilance. But it's improper to boycott them in the absence of strong evidence of wrong doing.

This is my take on the issue. I would love to be enlightened where it is in error.

Ajai Singh
_________________________________________
The diplomacy, but not the force! Solve the problems with the publisher in the slide, not by leading articles AND EDITORIALS!

Hnid Karim