WWF warns that China's forests are not out of the woods
1
Jim Giles, London Two in five biomedical journals have no declared policy on how to separate editorial and commercial matters, according to the preliminary results of a survey of editors. Some journal editors say they find the results disturbing, given the commercial pressure that journals have to deal with. Many say they have experienced cases where companies have sought, to varying degrees, to influence journal content. The survey asked the 350 members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a London-based association of journal editors and publishers, whether their employers had a “declared policy on how to ensure a sep- aration between editorial and commercial decisions”. The 118 responses received by 11 March indicate that 39% of respondents’ journals had no such policy. Reprints are one area in which editorial and financial issues can become entangled, says Alex Williamson, publishing director at the BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) Publishing Group in London. She has seen submission letters in which authors claimed that,should the paper involved be accepted,a pharmaceutical company would buy large numbers of reprints.“That can be very lucra- tive for the journal,”Williamson says. Some editors argue that formal policies are required to help them fend off more subtle attempts from companies to influence their content. “It doesn’t have to be direct,” agrees Merrill Goozner, director of the Integrity in Science project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington DC.“It can be implied.” And editors warn of the dangers of approaching firms with offers to sell adverts next to papers about the product being advertised, a practice that many publica- tions have policies against. “I know other journals do this,” Williamson says. “That can put editors under pressure.” Some jour- nals, including the medical giants such as the BMJ and The Lancet, check the factual content of the adverts that they run. But smaller journals often lack the resources to make such checks, say COPE members. A senior staff member at one journal that news Rachael Williams,Tokyo Government incentives to restore tree cover in China have damaged the environment and levied a high cost on forests worldwide, according to a WWF report issued this March. The critique suggests that China is shifting the ecological burden of its industrialization on to other countries. China has been keen to impose logging bans and promote replanting schemes since floods in 1998 killed thousands of people and inundated millions of hectares of farmland. The conservation group WWF has largely approved of these policies, particularly as they expand the habitat of the endangered giant panda. But, although official statistics show that the total amount of forest in China has increased by 1.2% a year over the past decade, much of the restored forest consists of single-species plantations on previously non-forested land, says the WWF report. As logging of some natural forest continues, this means that China’s forest diversity is probably declining, it says. As its housing and energy needs grow, China continues to be one of the world’s largest importers of illegally logged wood. To fill the gap between supply and demand it is estimated that China will need to import 125 million cubic metres of wood in the year 2010. More than half of this will probably come from Russia, Indonesia and Malaysia, where logging is poorly regulated. Illegal logging in such countries has long been seen as an important international issue. At an 18 March prelude to the G8 summit due to be held in Scotland this July, environmental and development ministers from the world’s eight leading industrialized nations committed to voluntary measures to address the problem. But environmental groups criticized the pledge, saying that legislative actions are needed. They added that countries outside the G8 — particularly China — also need to make responsible decisions about the resources they need. David Kaimowitz, director of the Center for International Forestry Research, based in Indonesia, says it is China’s ultimate aim to get most of its forestry products from its own plantations. “But no one knows when this will happen, if ever,” he says.“For the sake of the world’s forests, let us hope it does.” ■ Journals lack explicit policies for separating eds from ads WWF warns that China’s forests are not out of the woods NATURE | VOL 434 | 31 MARCH 2005 | www.nature.com/nature 549 does check — who asked not to be named — says that he asks for changes to be made to one in every three adverts submitted to his publication. Monitoring often uncovers the use of references that do not back up the claims made in the advert, he says, adding that the process is “very labour intensive”. Public rows between sponsors and jour- nals may also put pressure on editors. In 2000, the house journal of the Hastings Cen- ter,a bioethics research institute in Garrison, New York,published a critical article on anti- depressant drugs by David Healy, a director of psychological medicine at the University of Cardiff, Wales. A few months after publi- cation, pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly withdrew its annual $25,000 grant to the centre, saying that the Healy article was “inaccurate and unbalanced”. Some editors fear that such incidents could make journals think twice before pub- lishing material attacking pharmaceutical or other industries. To provide editors with support if they feel under pressure, COPE members suggest that journals produce poli- cies that cover relationships with advertisers, sponsors and firms involved in any other rev- enue streams. The policies would stress that issues such as reprint sales should not influ- ence the peer-review process and that adverts should be checked for accuracy. But some publishing insiders suggest that the 39% figure may overstate the problem. “The policies may not be explicit, but they are almost a given at most organizations,” says Andrea Powell, chair of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publish- ers, based in Worthing,West Sussex.“Editors are not likely to be swayed,as they don’t want their objectivity thrown into doubt.” ■ ➧ www.publicationethics.org.uk Book worms: advertisers can put editors under pressure. A. MACDONALD Nature Publishing Group ©2005
Transcript of WWF warns that China's forests are not out of the woods
Jim Giles,LondonTwo in five biomedical journals have nodeclared policy on how to separate editorialand commercial matters, according to thepreliminary results of a survey of editors.
Some journal editors say they find theresults disturbing, given the commercialpressure that journals have to deal with.Many say they have experienced cases wherecompanies have sought, to varying degrees,to influence journal content.
The survey asked the 350 members of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE), aLondon-based association of journal editorsand publishers, whether their employers hada “declared policy on how to ensure a sep-aration between editorial and commercialdecisions”. The 118 responses received by11 March indicate that 39% of respondents’journals had no such policy.
Reprints are one area in which editorialand financial issues can become entangled,says Alex Williamson, publishing director atthe BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal)Publishing Group in London. She has seensubmission letters in which authors claimedthat,should the paper involved be accepted,apharmaceutical company would buy largenumbers of reprints.“That can be very lucra-tive for the journal,”Williamson says.
Some editors argue that formal policiesare required to help them fend off more subtle attempts from companies to influencetheir content. “It doesn’t have to be direct,”agrees Merrill Goozner, director of theIntegrity in Science project at the Center forScience in the Public Interest in WashingtonDC.“It can be implied.”
And editors warn of the dangers ofapproaching firms with offers tosell adverts next to papers aboutthe product being advertised, apractice that many publica-tions have policies against. “Iknow other journals do this,”Williamson says. “Thatcan put editorsunder pressure.”
Some jour-nals, includingthe medical giantssuch as the BMJand The Lancet,check the factualcontent of theadverts that theyrun. But smallerjournals often lack the resources to make suchchecks, say COPE members. Asenior staff member at one journal that
news
Rachael Williams,TokyoGovernment incentives to restore treecover in China have damaged theenvironment and levied a high cost onforests worldwide, according to a WWFreport issued this March. The critiquesuggests that China is shifting theecological burden of its industrializationon to other countries.
China has been keen to impose loggingbans and promote replanting schemessince floods in 1998 killed thousands ofpeople and inundated millions of hectaresof farmland. The conservation groupWWF has largely approved of thesepolicies, particularly as they expand thehabitat of the endangered giant panda.
But, although official statistics showthat the total amount of forest in Chinahas increased by 1.2% a year over the past decade, much of the restored forestconsists of single-species plantations onpreviously non-forested land, says theWWF report. As logging of some naturalforest continues, this means that China’sforest diversity is probably declining,it says.
As its housing and energy needs grow,China continues to be one of the world’slargest importers of illegally loggedwood. To fill the gap between supply anddemand it is estimated that China willneed to import 125 million cubic metresof wood in the year 2010. More than halfof this will probably come from Russia,Indonesia and Malaysia, where logging ispoorly regulated.
Illegal logging in such countries has long been seen as an importantinternational issue. At an 18 Marchprelude to the G8 summit due to be heldin Scotland this July, environmental anddevelopment ministers from the world’seight leading industrialized nationscommitted to voluntary measures toaddress the problem. But environmentalgroups criticized the pledge, saying thatlegislative actions are needed. Theyadded that countries outside the G8 —particularly China — also need to makeresponsible decisions about the resourcesthey need.
David Kaimowitz, director of theCenter for International ForestryResearch, based in Indonesia, says it isChina’s ultimate aim to get most of itsforestry products from its ownplantations. “But no one knows when this will happen, if ever,” he says. “For the sake of the world’s forests, let us hope it does.” ■
Journals lack explicit policiesfor separating eds from ads
WWF warns thatChina’s forests arenot out of the woods
NATURE | VOL 434 | 31 MARCH 2005 | www.nature.com/nature 549
does check — who asked not to be named —says that he asks for changes to be made toone in every three adverts submitted to hispublication. Monitoring often uncovers theuse of references that do not back up theclaims made in the advert, he says, addingthat the process is “very labour intensive”.
Public rows between sponsors and jour-nals may also put pressure on editors. In2000, the house journal of the Hastings Cen-ter,a bioethics research institute in Garrison,New York,published a critical article on anti-depressant drugs by David Healy, a directorof psychological medicine at the Universityof Cardiff, Wales. A few months after publi-cation, pharmaceutical manufacturer EliLilly withdrew its annual $25,000 grant tothe centre, saying that the Healy article was“inaccurate and unbalanced”.
Some editors fear that such incidentscould make journals think twice before pub-lishing material attacking pharmaceutical orother industries. To provide editors withsupport if they feel under pressure, COPEmembers suggest that journals produce poli-cies that cover relationships with advertisers,sponsors and firms involved in any other rev-enue streams. The policies would stress thatissues such as reprint sales should not influ-ence the peer-review process and that advertsshould be checked for accuracy.
But some publishing insiders suggest thatthe 39% figure may overstate the problem.“The policies may not be explicit, but theyare almost a given at most organizations,”says Andrea Powell, chair of the Associationof Learned and Professional Society Publish-ers, based in Worthing,West Sussex.“Editorsare not likely to be swayed,as they don’t wanttheir objectivity thrown into doubt.” ■
➧ www.publicationethics.org.uk
Book worms:advertisers can put
editors under pressure.
A. M
AC
DO
NA
LD
31.3 News 549 am 29/3/05 10:26 am Page 549
Nature Publishing Group© 2005
