Affirming science and peer-review publishing

摘要

The March 15, 2007, issue of AJHP included an article that compared the performance of five devices used in the compounding of sterile products.1 The manufacturer of one of the devices brought suit against ASHP (the publisher of AJHP) and the authors of the paper, claiming that it was defamed through the criticism and test results published in the article. Sworn depositions were required of the Journal's editor in chief and the senior editor, who had managed the submitted manuscript. Among other items of evidence demanded by the plaintiff were the peer reviewers' comments, names, credentials, experience, and all communications between the corresponding editor and the authors. AJHP chose to submit reviewers' comments because they were directly relevant as evidence that AJHP editors had no reason to think that the manuscript included falsities or reckless disregard for the truth. This defamation case was fundamentally different from a recent drug product liability case in which reviewers' comments were successfully withheld from evidence because the court considered them irrelevant to the adverse effects of a specific drug.2 To protect the reviewers, AJHP redacted their comments to remove everything that could reveal their identities before surrendering the reviews as evidence.