Dr. Gold raises critical issues that have been discussed at length within scientific publishing circles for the past several years.
The questions are these:
- – Should a science-based, peer-reviewed journal like JADA be open to the acceptance and publication of industry-supported research?
- – Does JADA risk its credibility by accepting such research?
- – Should the ADA’s Journal be held to a higher standard than dentistry’s so-called "throw-away" publications?
- – Is it enough to disclose relationships between authors and manufacturers and to allow readers to make their own judgments about the validity of research?
After lengthy and critical discussion, we have concluded that the short answer to all these questions is yes. JADA’s first responsibility is to its readers, most of whom are dentists engaged in daily patient care. These practitioners have told us time and again over the years that they want and need information on products that are entering the dental marketplace.
Most of the cutting-edge product research conducted today is industry-supported, either directly or indirectly. If we were to reject such research out of hand, we would deprive our readers of a key source of product-related information.
Does our decision to consider acceptance of industry-backed research come with some risk to JADA’s credibility? It does indeed. But it is a risk that we have accepted in the interest of serving our readers. It also is a risk that we feel eminently qualified and equipped to manage.
All scientific articles submitted to JADA (including industry-supported product research) are subject to our long-established, carefully controlled peer-review process. Experts are assigned to scrutinize all submitted research and to judge the methods, findings and conclusions of these submissions. Manuscripts are accepted or rejected on their merits as dental science, not on the basis of who paid for the research.
Any existing relationships between manufacturers and authors are plainly and prominently disclosed in published articles. In this way, we invite readers to make their own judgments on the value and validity of a research report, just as Dr. Gold has done on the article in question. These disclosures also signal that we respect our readers as discerning consumers of information related to their own profession.
Dr. Gold contends that the headline on the report in question should have made it clear that this article was product-related. This is a valid criticism. We appreciate it, and we pledge to keep closer watch on this in the future.
Dr. Gold also finds it "most distressing" that one of the investigator/authors of this study was then-JADA Editor Marjorie K. Jeffcoat, who stepped down as editor at the end of last year. As readers know, Dr. Jeffcoat is a highly regarded dental research scientist, as well as the dean of the dental school at the University of Pennsylvania. She was not required to relinquish her credentials as a scientist to accept the JADA editorship. Far from it. It was in part because of those credentials that she got the job in the first place.
Finally, we were struck by Dr. Gold’s reference to the presentation of research that is "unbiased and untainted by for-profit interests." Underlying this statement is the assumption that all industry-supported research is inherently biased and tainted. No doubt some of it is, but some of it is not. Our goal at JADA is to sort through the research we receive and to publish only that which passes our test. This is what we do, and we do it to the best of our ability on behalf of our readers.
