|  When I joined The
Pharmaceutical Journal five years ago, I was
asked by the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to establish
an editorial
advisory board for The Journal. The board’s remit was to support
the editor and editorial staff in producing a high-quality publication
of relevance to members of the Society, and to
advise the editorial team in the strategic planning of The Journal. Day-to-day
editorial
decisions were to remain the responsibility of the editor and the editorial
staff, although we would remain accountable to the Council for The
Journal’s
editorial content.
An editorial advisory board was duly formed later in 2001 and, without
a doubt, it has done a good job, particularly in helping staff build
up contacts in the profession, acting as a sounding-board for ideas,
and telling us when we have done some things well and others things not
so well.
However, over the past five years many things have changed. The Pharmaceutical
Journal is the keystone of PJ Publications, which has been established
in a business unit (RPS Publishing) alongside the Pharmaceutical Press
and the British National Formulary. RPS Publishing — “the
wholly owned publishing organisation of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
of Great Britain” — has its own board structure designed
to support any developments needed to secure the financial contribution
PJ Publications makes to the Society. It also ensures the workings of
the unit reflect good business practice and governance.
Another change over the past five years is that members of The Journal’s
staff have become more confident in their own abilities to provide a
publication that is useful, informative and professionally produced.
Members of the news team, in particular, have worked hard in developing
their contacts and digging out stories of value to the profession as
a whole.
Pig-in-the-middle
Few readers of The Journal over the same
period, however, can have failed to notice the strains between different
factions of the profession that, at times, seem to have threatened the
very fabric of the Society. Although not always visible to the casual
reader, The Journal has occasionally found itself being pig-in-the-middle,
with different groups and individuals attempting to influence The
Journal’s
content.
We have done well to resist the pressures and, in the process, may have
produced content that may not always have impressed these different groups
(some of whose number have accused us of being partisan and even dangerous).
However, in our view, we have successfully served the wider profession;
after all, not all pharmacists are obsessed with pharmacy politics.
The Council, as a body, even though The Journal is accountable to it
for its editorial content, has never sought to interfere with what we
carry, although I am sure there are times when it would have liked to.
Editorial freedom underpins The Journal’s existence. Successive
editors and staff have considered themselves to be the custodians of
that editorial freedom for future generations and, therefore, have fought
hard to protect it. The editor and the editorial staff acknowledge that
they have to act within certain boundaries because they are, in fact,
directly employed by the Society.
So what is editorial freedom or independence all about? The International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors has drawn up a statement on editorial
independence that includes the following: “Journal owners should
not interfere in the evaluation, selection or editing of individual articles
either directly or by creating an environment that strongly
influences decisions.”
As far as The Journal is concerned, editorial freedom means that we have
the right to publish what we want and the right to reject what we do
not want without fear or favour. Despite what some might believe this
is not censorship.
If material is rejected, it is always for a good reason. Material may
be inaccurate, misleading or defamatory, or draw factually suspect conclusions.
Publishing such material does not serve the profession well and could
cause legal difficulties for all concerned. Thus, in the interests of
transparency and good governance, we have decided to establish a new
sort of editorial advisory board, and submit our decision-making processes
to independent scrutiny.
We are not alone. When Richard Smith left the BMJ just over
18 months ago, his final editorial comment was devoted to the need for
an editorial
advisory body to protect the BMJ’s position, and he cited JAMA’s
oversight committee as being a good example. “The optimal answer
is probably an oversight committee like that created by the American
Medical Association after the firing of an
editor of JAMA,” he wrote. “The committee should comprise
widely respected figures from medicine and serve as a buffer between
the editor and the British Medical Association, providing a judgement
on the editor’s performance and settling disputes.”
Pressure
More recently, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published
a leading article at the beginning of this year, describing in
detail the inappropriate pressure it was put under not to publish an
investigative article about over-the-counter access to emergency levonorgestrel.
The CMA wanted the article withheld following a complaint from the Canadian
Pharmacists Association.
The CMA, as publisher, was able to exert considerable pressure and the
article, when it appeared, was not as the editor had originally planned
but a “negotiated revision”. This was followed up with the
leading article discussing editorial freedom which included the announcement
that the journal had “established an advisory group to examine
CMAJ’s editorial autonomy and governance structure” and to
look into the issues of the CMAJ editorial independence. Tensions between
the CMA and the CMAJ have been simmering for some years and, as things
stand at the moment, the CMA board has yet to agree formally to “protect
the editorial freedom and independence of the CMAJ”. Then, on 20
February, the whole issue came to a head and the editor and deputy editor
of CMAJ, were sacked, triggered by a criticism made
online about the likely policies of Canada’s new health minister — a criticism
the CMA
did not like.
Staff at The Journal do not believe that the Council of the Society would
ever take such summary action but, for The Journal to be taken seriously,
editorial independence must not only exist but be seen to exist.
As Fiona Godlee, BMJ editor, states (4 March, Editor’s choice): “Tensions
are bound to exist between journal editors and owners. I could argue
that unless these exist the editor is not doing her job. But editors
must be
accountable and accept that there are limits to their freedom: a series
of poor decisions or unethical behaviour would be reasons for
removing an editor. … However, a journal’s credibility cannot
survive interference from its owner.”
Dr Godlee goes on to explain that, in the context of the CMA debacle,
serious damage has been done to the CMAJ’s reputation. It can only
be salvaged if the CMA commits “to establishing proper mechanisms
to protect the journal from political or commercial interference and
must make a public statement supporting editorial independence (as the
BMA has)” and as did the Society’s Council before I was appointed
(PJ, 14 October 2000, p549).
So what do we think the editorial advisory board will do for The
Journal and how will it work? Primarily it is designed to help ensure the independence
and integrity of The Journal by acting as a buffer between The
Journal and the Society, which, to all intents and purposes, comprises three
main parties, namely, the Society’s Council, the Society’s
directors and the Society’s members and fellows. In a case of disagreement
between The Journal and one of the parties, the editorial advisory board
could be asked to look into the disagreement and pass comment on whether
or not the editor or editorial staff had acted reasonably.
Members of the Society, members of Council and directors of the Society
could all ask the board to comment on issues. Similarly, the editor could
ask the board to comment if one of the parties had, in his or her view,
interfered in editorial decision-making. Arbitrate
Terms of reference for the board are outlined in Panel 1. These are
based on widely recognised principles of good journalism set out in Panel
2. The board’s independent existence means that there is now
a body that can arbitrate when there have been allegations of
interference in editorial processes or accusations of editorial bias.
It will be the visible face of The Journal’s editorial independence.
There will, however, be no obligation on the editor to seek the board’s
permission or
approval before making a decision on whether to publish an item or to
decline to publish an item.
Panel 1: Terms of reference for the new
board
· To help ensure that The
Journal’s independence
and integrity are maintained, whatever the political or economic
pressure
· To help ensure that The Journal follows the highest journalistic
standards
· To comment on disputes between The
Journal and a member or fellow
of the Society, a member of the Council or a director of the Society
· To comment if the editor believes that the editorial freedom
of The Journal is being threatened
Complaints to and comments from the editorial
advisory board will be reported to the Society’s Council.
The Council may decide to take further action.
Board meetings will take place when issues are raised and there
will be one public meeting a year. When an urgent issue is raised,
at least three members of the editorial advisory board (including
the chairman) will be contacted for comment. The chairman would
be invited to attend one Council meeting per year to report on
the board’s activities.
Board members must not hold office in the Society structure where
there could be a conflict of interest between the two roles (such
as member of Council or an employee of the Society).
Editorial advisory board members will remain on the board for a
maximum term of three years (with the exception of the chairman
whose term of office could be renewed with the agreement of the
editor and the Council). |
Panel 2: Principles of good journalism
· To be accurate in the reporting of stories
· To tell the truth to the best of our knowledge and ability
· To place stories in context and to be open and honest in the
way that news is gathered
· To be fair and to give the opportunity for both parties to an
issue to comment, and to treat interviewees fairly
· To acknowledge mistakes and print corrections immediately
· To reflect the interests and opinions of all pharmacists
· To publish comment or articles anonymously only when the interests
of the whole profession are served by protecting the author, not
because the individual wants anonymity
· To ensure that factual information in opinion columns and editorials
follows the same standards of accuracy that are expected in news
stories
· To have the confidence to reject stories and opinion pieces — whoever
presents the information — if we are not sure that the pieces
are accurate and truthful
· To maintain the important distinction between advertising and
news so readers are not confused and business interests never influence
news coverage |
The editorial advisory board will have an
external chairman with editorial experience and an understanding of the
issues involved. Niall Dickson,
chief executive of the King’s Fund and former social affairs editor
at the BBC, has agreed to take this on. He is to be supported by three
pharmacists: Noel Baumber, independent community pharmacist, Soraya Dhillon,
head of the new
school of pharmacy at the University of Hertfordshire, and Steve Wicks,
head of
research and development at Pfizer. The fifth member of the board is
Tim Albert, a former journalist and editor who, since 1990, has run a
training company specialising in teaching editing and writing skills
to doctors, pharmacists and other health professionals. He is also a
member of the council of the Committee on Publication Ethics. (The Committee
on Publication Ethics — www.publicationethics.org.uk — was
formed in 1997. Its major objective is to provide a sounding board for
editors who are struggling with how best to deal with possible breaches
of
research and publication ethics.)
We envisage that most of the deliberations of the board will be carried
out electronically. However, there will be at least one board meeting
a year when issues will be discussed in public. The editor and at least
two members of the editorial staff will attend this meeting, and two
representatives of the Society’s branch and regional network will
be invited to attend as observers.
The editorial advisory board will have a preliminary meeting in April
when it will
be invited to decide how it wishes to be
approached.
We expect that it will agree that, in the first instance, correspondents
or aggrieved parties should take up their complaint with the editor and
editorial staff. If they are not satisfied with the outcome, they should
then send the complaint to the board. Tim Albert Associates (TAA) has
agreed to handle the administration of these complaints so that they
remain completely separate from The Journal.
TAA will acknowledge receipt of the complaint, ask The Journal to provide
any
information about the handling of the complaint, ask the complainant
to amplify any
details if appropriate and then forward the
information to members of the board for comment. The formal process will
be agreed in April and contact details published thereafter.There is
also some expectation that the process may be revised after the first
year, since The Journal’s staff and the editorial advisory board
are both working in previously uncharted territory.
Although The Journal would be happy to continue as it has done in the
past, confident that the decisions it makes preserve its
integrity, pharmacy is a more complicated place than it was, say, 20
years ago and the pharmaceutical political arena is becoming ever more
challenging. The existence of this new advisory editorial board should
do much to assure The Journal’s continued editorial
independence. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal