Supplements used to advantage

A recent (January 2010) editorial in The Lancet addressing the 'perils of journal and supplement publishing' states in no unclear terms that the publishing of commercially sponsored supplements is 'firmly off the agenda' for The Lancet (1). The editorial notes that although supplements and custom publications are an established element in journal publishing, supplemental material 'is usually much inferior to that of any parent title' and is generally problematic for editors and reviewers. On this note, The Lancet goes on to identify examples of commercial supplement publications that support this view, including a recent example that had fallen into their own hands. The Lancet is not the only entity to address custom publications this winter. Elsevier, the publisher behind The Lancet, found itself at the center of controversy and criticism in 2009 when it was revealed that a custom publication was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company without this information being disclosed to readers. In the wake of this incident, Elsevier chose to review its internal policies and procedures for custom and sponsored publications, leading to both an introduction of new and practical elements to these and to a decision to make these policies and procedures public (see announcement). These actions recognized the increasing demand for transparency that is being heard throughout the scholarly communications arena. Debate over supplemental materials, invited articles and custom publications rises occasionally in scientific publishing, particularly in bio-medical fields. At the heart of most criticism is a concern over whether our usual mechanisms of quality control Á in particular, stringent peer review Á have been foregone in the interests of attaining financial gain. Moreover, and following from this, questions arise about publications that have not been subjected to critical review but are being presented as scientifically rigorous alongside other publications that have been. In short, are we being duped into trusting an article that reports positively on a drug because the company that developed and/or produces that drug has paid a high enough fee to a journal or communications company to publish the material in Á or as supplemental material to Á an otherwise esteemed journal? Unlike The Lancet, Global Health Action has deliberately and firmly placed supplemental publications on its agenda, welcoming Supplements to and Themed Clusters of Papers in the journal. Though a fairly new journal, we have already published two supplements (2, 3) and a thematic cluster of articles (4), and at least …