Letters
Information science
Volume 197 - Issue 2

The MJA and Gawler: a case of self-censorship? Correction and clarification

Author:  Annette G Katelaris

Med J Aust 2012; 197 (2): 93. || doi: 10.5694/mja12.11051
Published online: 16 July 2012
Comment: In the 4 June issue of the Journal, I responded1 to an enquiry from McBryde2 as to why the Medical Journal of Australia decided not to publish an article by Haines and Lowenthal regarding the importance of a histological diagnosis when managing advanced cancer. I would like to clarify that the prime reason for rejecting the manuscript was that the patient in the case it reported ...
Download PDF (101 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

Comment: In the 4 June issue of the Journal, I responded1 to an enquiry from McBryde2 as to why the Medical Journal of Australia decided not to publish an article by Haines and Lowenthal regarding the importance of a histological diagnosis when managing advanced cancer.

I would like to clarify that the prime reason for rejecting the manuscript was that the patient in the case it reported had not provided consent to have his clinical details published, and was not, as my letter stated, that the information in the manuscript was already publicly available. I also acknowledge that while the clinical facts were not new, the interpretation was novel, and it was for this reason that the manuscript was originally considered for publication. Unfortunately, we were unaware at the time of our decision to accept the manuscript that patient consent would not be forthcoming. The quality of the manuscript by Haines and Lowenthal was not in question. Finally, we received the original manuscript in October 2010, not in 2011 as was stated.

View this article on Wiley Online Library