Irregularities in Australian Medical Journal published by Elsevier
Many researchers will refuse to have anything further to do with Australia’s leading medical journal over its sacking of a highly respected emeritus professor of public health, Stephen Leeder, says an eminent public health academic, Dr Ken Harvey.
On Friday it was revealed that Leeder’s position as editor of the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) had been terminated after he raised concerns that the journal’s publisher, AMPCo, planned to outsource some of its functions to the international company Elsevier.
Elsevier was widely criticised in 2009 for failing to disclose that one of its journals was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company, despite the journal containing favourable coverage of that company. The company apologised.
Harvey, who quit his job as an adjunct associate professor with La Trobe university last year after his then employer struck a $15m research deal with the vitamins giant Swisse Wellness, said he applauded Leeder for taking a stand.
“I have sent a protest letter to the AMPCo board, and a letter of support to Stephen,” Harvey said.
“To outsource to a commercial publisher with [this] reputation … is a mistake that is fairly irredeemable.
“I think there is an analogy between what the journal has done, and La Trobe wanting to do an unethical deal with Swisse to embark on industry-sponsored research. Leeder has nothing but my admiration for taking a stand.”
AMPCo is a subsidiary of the peak body for doctors, the Australian Medical Association (AMA), and after it sacked Leeder, most of the journal’s 20-member editorial advisory committee also resigned in solidarity.
Harvey has been a reviewer and contributor for the Medical Journal of Australia for about 40 years, but said he was now reconsidering his future involvement.
“A lot of people will be anxious about reviewing for the MJA in future,” he said.
As well as Harvey, other leading academics have come out in support of Leeder over the past few days.
Professor Paul Zimmet, from the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, told the ABC that he was “shocked” by Leeder’s treatment.
“You couldn’t imagine anyone with his understanding of public health and medical issues would be sacked like this,” he said. “This decision should be examined very closely.”
Guardian Australia understands remaining staff at the journal have been told they face dismissal if they speak to anyone about the Elsevier deal.
President of the AMA, Associate Professor Brian Owler, said the decision to terminate Leeder’s position had been a tough one.
“He is a highly respected and distinguished member of the medical profession. He is also a leading light of medical publishing in Australia and internationally as a writer, editor, and opinion leader,” Owler said.
“Unfortunately, agreement could not be reached between the AMPCo board and Professor Leeder on the tough business decisions AMPCo needed to make to ensure the future of the MJA.
“As a result, the AMPCo chair terminated professor Leeder’s tenure as editor-in-chief of the MJA.”
Owler said he asked the “significant number” of MJA editorial advisory staff who also resigned to reconsider.
“I hope that they do so,” he said.
The decision to outsource to Elsevier was made after a competitive process, Owler said, during which the AMPCo board interrogated Elsevier management to satisfy itself about the company and its reputation.
Leeder told Guardian Australia he was genuinely sad he was no longer in the role.
While he said he had received about 250 emails, 100 phone calls and 50 texts in support since he was sacked and was touched that the advisory board had stood by him, he said it was upsetting his relationship with the journal had ended this way.
“I liked so much about the job,” he said.
“I enjoyed the opportunity to be creative in writing editorials, I liked keeping my finger on the pulse of medicine in Australia, I loved asking people to write for us and working with authors to edit their work to make it sharp and compelling.
“I liked working with the production staff and other editors. There’s heaps about it I will miss.”
He said he had not been consulted about the move to Elsevier, and that while he understood the need to consider the economic feasibility of the journal, a range of options should have been brought to the table.
“One day I turned up to a board meeting and Elsevier made a presentation on the basis there had been a call for bids to outsource the journal which had apparently taken place.
“I knew absolutely nothing about the call for bids.
“If this is consultation, then consultation has a new meaning.”
Source: The Guardian
