[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
December 26, 1990

Peer Review and Dissenting Manuscripts: The Cantekin Case

JAMA. 1990;264(24):3144. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03450240046022
Abstract

To the Editor.—  We are writing with respect to the report entitled "Biomedical Information, Peer Review, and Conflict of Interest as They Influence Public Health,"1 which appeared in your March 9 issue. The authors of that report (a bioengineer, an economist, and a lawyer) present their version of "an actual case" in which they (and we) have been involved. Central to virtually every point Dr Cantekin and his coauthors attempt to make is their portrayal of Dr Cantekin's 1986 submission to the New England Journal of Medicine as a "dissenting manuscript" concerning the Otitis Media Research Center's Antibiotic for Otitis Media With Effusion—I (AB-OME-I) clinical trial. That portrayal is misleading and erroneous.The manuscript submitted by Dr Cantekin et al to the New England Journal of Medicine (Cantekin et al) was not written as a dissent to the Otitis Media Research Center's report of results of the AB-OME-I trial,

×