Response to Firing of CMAJ Editors (Posted to WAME)
Mood:  sharp
Topic: Less Heat, More Action
Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) Editors Fired: What Do We Do?

Permit me, my friends, to express my point of view about the recent firing of our CMAJ colleagues. Please read through the whole piece coolly before you form opinions, or feel like attributing motives to me as the writer.

I think the CMAJ Holdings is well within its rights to hire or fire any employee it decides to employ. Is there any provision in the contract the editors had during appointment that they would be offered an explanation why they were being fired? Is there a provision for the employees concerned to appeal this decision in any forum, statutory or legal? In fact, the right not to go public can be enforced by the employer on the employee, which is why the two editors cannot go public as to the reasons for their removal. What this means is that editors, as employees, have already abrogated their right for so-called editorial independence the moment they sign such employment contracts. They have no solace but to exercise their editorial freedom within the confines of their holding companies’ notion of how much and how far this editorial freedom has to be exercised.

Make no mistake about it. We may want to run, or feel justified in running, biomedical journals for the benefit of patients, research, scientific advancement etc. But for employers all these are only intermediate goals, not the final ones. They are more interested in maintaining a balance between political and economic forces, which have a great say in keeping the financial and other viabilities of their associations, and their own positions, which are executive positions no doubt but with strong political overtones. The reach and prestige of such journals, which are good window dressings for such purposes, and their zealous editors, whose gladiator roles are tolerated, even encouraged, till it serves employer interests, or at least do not threaten to subvert it, only serve to further such interests of ambitious employers occupying executive positions. Or, often such actions have to be muffled simply because the zeal has become too hot to handle, and voices of protest are being raised in influential political/ economically strong circles.

That is why, in spite of all the brouhaha all the editors in WAME and the rest may resort to, the employer concerned is not likely to revert his decision. In fact he has anticipated it, and has decided to remain immune to such concerns. If he had not done so, he would not have taken such a drastic step in the first place. Surely, he is not so na?ve as to believe there will not be a public outcry? If he is, he doesn’t deserve to be an employer (many here may agree to this, but I mean in another context. He will lose his position as an employer.) . Surely, the employer also knows the repercussions of the drastic step he is taking. And yet when he takes it, he knows he has the winning cards in his hands.

Also note, the other members on the editorial board have registered a protest in no uncertain terms. But they have ultimately decided not to quit the board. Do not for a moment feel the employer had not anticipated this. He knew this would happen. He also knows the good work done by the fired editors will be carried forward by the newly appointed, as the dust settles on this episode, as happened with the JAMA and NEJM before. What happened when their illustrious editors had to leave? Did any of those journals close down, or go down in scientific standing? In fact new editors came and carried the journal forward. This, too, the employers know very well. So, we may go ahead and make all the noises. But trust the new editor to first reluctantly, and then with greater zeal, take over from where the earlier editor left, and take the journal to greater heights. This he will do for his own survival, and for leaving his impress ‘on the sands of time’. This too the employer who fires knows very well.

Passionate, emotional responses when a fellow editor is fired are all right, and I guess justified too, as it helps us all let off steam. And it also helps express solidarity with the fired, and our empathy too. And also, (pardon me for saying this, and I do not wish to hurt our sensitivities heightened beyond doubt at present), reflects on our own fears and uncertainties on playing a zealous crusading role as editors, ready to take on establishments’ nefarious activities. But we forget that a shrewd employer holds the cards always. Tell me of any notable example where one editor of note in one prestigious journal has been reinstated because of a public outcry such as this?

No, my friends, the game is not so simple. The letter written by WAME is not to be devalued at all. Neither is the outcry of all you souls hurt and embittered by this episode. But trust me when I say that the show will just go on after the dust has settled. This is not being cynical. This is just being frank and ready to see the writing on the wall.

To change the writing, or to rewrite what’s already put up, requires some other action. I wonder whether editors and other concerned members of such organizations have the will, and nerve, to sustain such agitations. Please do not get this amiss. I do not doubt our sincerity of purpose. I just feel the concerted effort to enter into a protracted, activist battle with the establishment is not the stuff of which we are made. There are not too many Nancy Olivieris around.

I would be very willing to be proved wrong, both in my analysis, and by actions that can remedy such situations.

What Actions Would be Needed?

I think they are basically five:

1. The entire board of present editors should resign in protest against the firing. And not rejoin till they are reinstated. They must be absorbed in other journals if it comes to that, so their positions are secure.
2. The WAME and ICMJE should categorically support the reinstatement of the fired editors. No mincing words, just clear-cut statements of strong protest and expectation of appropriate action. And follow up by supporting the agitating board members, as well as the fired editors, with legal counsel and financial help for the protracted battle to follow.
3. An agitation for reinstatement of the fired editors by members of CMA, lead by members whose credentials are aboveboard and have no political/ personal agenda of their own to fulfill.
4. The research community whose articles have been accepted by CMAJ must ask for withdrawal of the accepted articles, and researchers should decide not to submit their research work to a journal which does not respect editorial independence.
5. Questions must be raised in the Canadian parliament, and the CMA asked to answer on the floor of the house why it took such an action.

Friends and colleagues, a strong arbitrary action by an employer needs an equally strong spirited response from the editors/ researchers. Just as there is a WAME, there is the need to set up a WAMR (World Association of Medical Researchers). This is the right time, and occasion, this is done. And a strong protest by both such organization, and an employer will think ten times before firing an honest, upright editor.

And this is the only language highhanded brash employers will ever understand. If we have the nerve to speak it, that is.

Otherwise, let us feel happy making out loud-muffled noises, and let the show proceed to unfold after a small interval.

I am sorry I have been rather forthright. But how long can one keep the blindfold? Or avoid seeing that which is best seen uncovered?


Ajai
28 Feb 2006