To the Editor.
—In Dr Rennie's recent response1 to Dr Goldstein's commentary,2 it appeared that the excessive cost of an association-sponsored journal over one with drug company advertising was said to justify the impropriety or the "appearance" of impropriety involved in accepting advertising.It was further suggested that editorial decisions are somehow separated from advertising decisions, making a peer-reviewed journal somehow immune from the undue influence of the pharmaceutical industry. These explanations seem to be ones of convenience, not ethical arguments.Although I pay dues to the AMA, as a family physician I cannot receive the Archives of Internal Medicine without paying an extra fee each year. An internist who is not a member of the AMA can receive the Archives of Internal Medicine free each month. The reason this happens relates to the type of circulation the AMA must provide in order to attract and hold certain
Kelly MJ. Of Mugs and Marketing. JAMA. 1991;266(20):2830. doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470200042017