Wow. Is Andy still working for Nature? I thought they would have fired him by now. While I wouldn't say he deserves to go to prison, if he went I'd think it funny.

This topic is very interesting, it seems. I think I'll write a separate blog entry to flesh the discussion out a bit more. Hey! I may even write our next editorial about this matter...

As I see it, your answer to my question is problematic.

Your answer asserts that journals’ conflict of interest concerns can be entirely resolved by separating financial and advertising considerations from editorial ones. Few people, I suspect, would find such a simple solution plausible. Even with an absolute division of labour between financial and editorial activity, to be truly unconflicted an editor would have to be totally unaware of the magazine’s readership and advertisers and in fact would probably have to be unaware even of the existence of a firewall in the first place (because even acknowledgement of a firewall implies that there must be something on the other side of it). Total lack of conflict would in fact leave an editor unable to do their job.

Conflicts are therefore an inseparable part of editorship and the important question is whether an editor understands and recognises conflicts adequately and deals with them satisfactorily. This is why questions are flying over Andrew Marshall. Did he actually check the facts of the reviewers (since some of them are demonstrably wrong)? Whose interests was he balancing? Did he even recognise a conflict?

Your answer to my question incidentally also contradicts a point you made earlier in this blog (Dec 10): in that post you did acknowledge conflicts of interest and suggested, reasonably enough, that the answer was to check the facts, and presumably you might have added-be as balanced as possible, which is much more realistic and pragmatic than denying (as you do in answering my question) that conflicts exist in the first place.

If however, we accept this analysis of editorial conflicts, and also yours from Dec 10, then your explanation of the distinction between a perceived and an actual conflict of interest has no meaningful basis and your response has left us none the wiser.

Thanks for your question. In the case of a perceived conflict, people may get the impression that there is a conflict when, in reality, there isn't because, editorially, we've taken every precaution to make sure that the business side of things stays clear of the editorial side. As many of the steps we take are only visible to us (the editors), we are satisfied that there isn't a conflict, but our readers may not, because they don't have all of the background information. So, if we want to be extra cautious, we would have to put ourselves in the shoes of the reader before doing anything that could be construed as a conflict of interest.

I hope this clarifies matters a little.

I am interested that Juan Carlos Lopez makes use of the term 'perceived conflict of interest'. This term crops up frequently in the editorials of Nature journals and I would be extremely grateful if, as a Nature editor, you would like to explain the difference between a perceived and an actual conflict of interest?
Is it more than just a term (like 'perceived risk')that trivialises an important issue? Thank you.

I was going to write a response to the previous comment, as it is certainly an interesting point.

However, instead I'll say that I'm somewhat gutted to discover that this GM-related post is the one that has elicited the most interesting responses to anything in our blog and, paradoxically, it's about something we don't even care much at Nature Medicine.

Scientists sometimes have commitments but the reason the industry ties of the four reviewers are such a focus is that not one of those selected appears to have published a single paper in the area of nutritional science or toxicology whereas they are all well known champions of GM crops and their safety - indeed, one's a former Vice President of BIO while another heads a biotech industry funded lobby group in the UK.

This might suggest a curiously narrow selection process if it weren't for the fact that the pre-publication correspondence that has now emerged actually suggests that these reviewers weren't selected at all but proposed themselves.

In other words, while Andrew Marshall may have determined the final format of the Ermakova piece, it still appears to have involved the self-selection of reviewers intent on attacking Ermakova and her work. ˝

Thanks for the two comments on this post.

I agree that the EDM was not only about Nature Biotechnology's piece, but certainly the last comment on articles being misleading refers to the Ermakova piece. All of that being said, I don't think the piece was a set-up.

And regarding the fact that Nature Biotechnology is profitable for its owners and could never encourage disinterested science, I disagree, as I can guarantee that management does not influence at all our editorial decisions. Many of us would not work here if the opposite were the case. I do admit that perceive conflicts of interest can be problematic, but there's little to do about them other than being able to back your decisions and check your facts before publishing something.

Last, in the context of conflicts of interest, Dr. Ermakova herself is Vice President of Russian National Genetic Safety Association (http://www.regnum.ru/english/737046.html), one of several groups campaigning for the a ban on all transgenic groups in Europe (http://www.gmofree-europe.org/countries/Russia.htm).

Funny that this has not been mentioned in any of the correspondence about this matter, whereas all the industry ties of the other scientists were disclosed and criticized by pundits.

Interesting piece on the Ermakova-Nat Bio row here - 'What is Nature Biotechnology good for?' http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/brc6.php

Includes this "Its owner, Nature Publishing Group no doubt finds that publishing a magazine that does double duty as a science journal and as a trade journal is a highly profitable combination, but equally it is never going to be one that encourages disinterested science."

Also, more on the other case the EDM focuses on - 'Corn fakes' http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/news10.php

Good of you to spring to the defence of Andy Marshall and Nature Biotechnology. That's what friends are for. Yes, the article was a feature, but it was also a set-up, and such things should have no place in scientific journals. The EDM, when you look at it, is not just about the Nature Biotech piece -- it is about the all-too-common practice of vilifying those who have the temerity to find problems with GM crops and foods, and about the publication of fraudulent science. The EDM mentions specifically an article published in another journal -- so the last statement which you cite had nothing whatsoever to do with Nature Biotechnology.