Volume 196 - Issue 10
The MJA and Gawler: a case of self-censorship?
Author: Annette G Katelaris
Med J Aust 2012; 196 (10): 628. || doi: 10.5694/mja12.10806
Published online: 4 June 2012
Published online: 4 June 2012
In reply: The article referred to by McBryde was submitted to the MJA in 2011. Patient consent was requested, following standard MJA practice for all manuscripts containing potentially identifying patient data or images, but this was not provided by the authors. We agree that all the information was already publicly available, and it
was for ...
In reply: The article referred to by McBryde was submitted to the MJA in 2011. Patient consent was requested, following standard MJA practice for all manuscripts containing potentially identifying patient data or images, but this was not provided by the authors. We agree that all the information was already publicly available, and it was for this prime reason that the manuscript was rejected. The manuscript referred to by McBryde presented supposition, but nothing new in the way of facts. The Journal’s independent external Content Review Committee made the final decision to reject the manuscript.
The MJA has previously published material on the Gawler case, including a challenge to reported aspects of the case history1 and a critical personal perspective on the Gawler program in the 21 May issue this year.2
Patient consent, accountable editorial processes, and an article’s validity, significance and potential to advance medical practice are primary considerations in the MJA’s editorial decisions, as our readership rightly expects. These principles were applied in the MJA’s final decision not to publish the article.
Competing interests
No relevant disclosures.
References
- Gawler GO. Cancer patients at risk from inaccurate clinical reporting in a high-profile alternative treatment story: comments and corrections. Med J Aust 2010; 193: 371-372. link_1
- Hall TL. Healed, or hungry? A personal perspective on the Gawler program. Med J Aust 2012; 196: 598-599.