Supplements, “ride-alongs,” and maintaining your trust

With this issue of the journal, you will receive a supplemental Clinical Update on basal insulin therapy. Many of you probably wonder what our policy is for supplements (and other materials) bundled with the journal.

As Editor, I have final approval for all parts of the journal, including supplements. In JFP we focus on highly practical, evidence-based articles emphasizing quantitative, patient-oriented outcomes. We also have uniform standards for style, length, and content. Every piece is sent for peer review and must be scientifically accurate and reflect fair balance. Information that you can trust is our stock in trade.

Supplements reflect more diversity of presentation style, relevancy, the use of cases, and the discussion of patient-oriented evidence. All such manuscripts—whether accredited for continuing medical education (CME) or not—are peer-reviewed, assessed by content experts, and must be scientifically accurate and balanced. Some supplements are quite narrow and discuss a single drug or device. When this is the case, a comparison with competing alternatives is required, and we make a concerted effort to achieve an even-handed presentation. Conflicts of interest and author disclosure of pharmaceutical company ties must be clearly noted. In one notable example, a supplement went through almost a dozen revisions before being suitable for publication. In my mind, every piece accompanying the journal reflects the confidence you put in us—and I am fortunate to have a publisher that supports this editorial control.

Finally, let me address the how and why of supplements. All such pieces are sponsored—this typically is provided by a drug or device manufacturer. The rules for such pieces have become quite stringent, and have served to eliminate some of the more biased practices of the past. Often, as Editor, I will be involved in the suggestion of authors, development of the supplement’s goals, and comments on interim drafts. Even when “finished” pieces come to the journal, multiple revisions are the norm, not the exception.

In the end, I view supplements and “ride-alongs” as value-added editorial units, which our readers may choose to read or not because of their commercial sponsorship. Let me know your thoughts about supplements and the related ethical issues they raise, at [email protected].

With this issue of the journal, you will receive a supplemental Clinical Update on basal insulin therapy. Many of you probably wonder what our policy is for supplements (and other materials) bundled with the journal.

As Editor, I have final approval for all parts of the journal, including supplements. In JFP we focus on highly practical, evidence-based articles emphasizing quantitative, patient-oriented outcomes. We also have uniform standards for style, length, and content. Every piece is sent for peer review and must be scientifically accurate and reflect fair balance. Information that you can trust is our stock in trade.

Supplements reflect more diversity of presentation style, relevancy, the use of cases, and the discussion of patient-oriented evidence. All such manuscripts—whether accredited for continuing medical education (CME) or not—are peer-reviewed, assessed by content experts, and must be scientifically accurate and balanced. Some supplements are quite narrow and discuss a single drug or device. When this is the case, a comparison with competing alternatives is required, and we make a concerted effort to achieve an even-handed presentation. Conflicts of interest and author disclosure of pharmaceutical company ties must be clearly noted. In one notable example, a supplement went through almost a dozen revisions before being suitable for publication. In my mind, every piece accompanying the journal reflects the confidence you put in us—and I am fortunate to have a publisher that supports this editorial control.

Finally, let me address the how and why of supplements. All such pieces are sponsored—this typically is provided by a drug or device manufacturer. The rules for such pieces have become quite stringent, and have served to eliminate some of the more biased practices of the past. Often, as Editor, I will be involved in the suggestion of authors, development of the supplement’s goals, and comments on interim drafts. Even when “finished” pieces come to the journal, multiple revisions are the norm, not the exception.

In the end, I view supplements and “ride-alongs” as value-added editorial units, which our readers may choose to read or not because of their commercial sponsorship. Let me know your thoughts about supplements and the related ethical issues they raise, at [email protected].

With this issue of the journal, you will receive a supplemental Clinical Update on basal insulin therapy. Many of you probably wonder what our policy is for supplements (and other materials) bundled with the journal.

As Editor, I have final approval for all parts of the journal, including supplements. In JFP we focus on highly practical, evidence-based articles emphasizing quantitative, patient-oriented outcomes. We also have uniform standards for style, length, and content. Every piece is sent for peer review and must be scientifically accurate and reflect fair balance. Information that you can trust is our stock in trade.

Supplements reflect more diversity of presentation style, relevancy, the use of cases, and the discussion of patient-oriented evidence. All such manuscripts—whether accredited for continuing medical education (CME) or not—are peer-reviewed, assessed by content experts, and must be scientifically accurate and balanced. Some supplements are quite narrow and discuss a single drug or device. When this is the case, a comparison with competing alternatives is required, and we make a concerted effort to achieve an even-handed presentation. Conflicts of interest and author disclosure of pharmaceutical company ties must be clearly noted. In one notable example, a supplement went through almost a dozen revisions before being suitable for publication. In my mind, every piece accompanying the journal reflects the confidence you put in us—and I am fortunate to have a publisher that supports this editorial control.

Finally, let me address the how and why of supplements. All such pieces are sponsored—this typically is provided by a drug or device manufacturer. The rules for such pieces have become quite stringent, and have served to eliminate some of the more biased practices of the past. Often, as Editor, I will be involved in the suggestion of authors, development of the supplement’s goals, and comments on interim drafts. Even when “finished” pieces come to the journal, multiple revisions are the norm, not the exception.

In the end, I view supplements and “ride-alongs” as value-added editorial units, which our readers may choose to read or not because of their commercial sponsorship. Let me know your thoughts about supplements and the related ethical issues they raise, at [email protected].