Affirming science and peer-review publishing.

896 Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 66 May 15, 2009 Copyright © 2009, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved. 1079-2082/09/0502-0896$06.00. Affirming science and peer-review publishing of scientific exploration if researchers felt constrained from publicly reporting such differences. For publishers, the decision defends the sanctity of the time-honored peer-review process in helping decide what merits publication. In this case, four expert reviewers independently advised the Journal’s editors that publishing the findings would be important in helping ensure patient safety. Throughout the case, there was concern that the expert reviewers would be drawn into the fray. It was their opinions, after all, that strongly influenced the editors to publish the paper. Reviewers were not named as defendants, and their names were removed from all documents provided to the plaintiff by AJHP, but if the case had been decided in favor of the plaintiff, it is easy to imagine that reviewers could have faced some legal action by the plaintiff. If that had happened, the foundation of peer-reviewed publications would have been damaged irreparably. What expert would dare praise an article that expressed the opinion that product B appeared to be inferior to product A, if he or she could imagine a lawsuit subsequent to conveying this assessment to journal editors? Hardly anyone would accept an invitation to review; the risk would outweigh the concern for scientific validity. The judgment noted that “if ASHP honestly thought that the authors’ process was appropriate and that the authors honestly interpreted those results to show that [the plaintiff ’s] device is inferior, then stating those ‘opinions’ is not defamation.” The correct remedy was not an award of damages but rather the plaintiff ’s submission of a rebuttal to the Journal for publication consideration. To date, no such rebuttal has been submitted. In the court’s language, “a suit for defamation merely chills attempts at open scientific debate.” From a publisher’s perspective, one of the most rewarding opinions of the court was stated just before the conclusion: “Quite simply, this battle should take place in the pages of the ASHP journal and similar publications, not in a court.” This view upholds the societal value of peer-reviewed scientific journals.