[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
September 28, 1994

Kaposi's Sarcoma, Vascular Permeability, and Scientific Integrity

Author Affiliations

Editor-in-Chief, Science

JAMA. 1994;272(12):921-922. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520120026023

To the Editor.  —We are writing to correct the record with regard to the Brief Report in JAMA by Dr Witte and colleagues.1 Witte et al sent a technical comment to Science, which was peer reviewed according to our usual policy and was rejected. They have a perfect right to disagree with that decision, but to claim that scientific integrity is involved strikes us as very peculiar.Science regularly publishes cutting-edge research, and we expect and welcome scientific critiques of articles we have published. In fact, we have a standard procedure—a special section, Technical Comments—to handle criticisms of articles we publish. When a technical comment is submitted to Science, the authors of the original article are given a chance to respond. The entire exchange is then sent to expert reviewers. The decision to accept or reject the technical comment and reply is based on the comments of those expert

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview