RW: What’s been the most troubling incident(s) in the journals’ responses to your correspondence?

BG: I think it depends on perspective. NEJM have simply come out and said, effectively: “We don’t care about outcome switching and we don’t care about your letters correcting it”. While we disagree, and we think readers will be surprised to hear that NEJM take that view, it is at least straightforward. The responses from Annals have really surprised everyone, because they’ve been so confused, so internally contradictory, riddled with factual errors, and then they’ve behaved very oddly around publishing responses to their “rebuttals”.

you’d think journals have a vital interest in making papers as high quality as possible, but apparently that’s not the case, which should make it easier to replace them with something better

• Uncategorized