6k run 
PR 29:30

Wow. This is incredible. I assumed that this was going to be  another story by an editor telling us how bad the journals are -- get out your handkerchiefs -- and how they couldn't understand, since they themselves couldn't be responsible, how it got so bad. But here we actually see where the dog is buried. Smith thought he was supposed to be a political leader.  He was supposed to “set a path, goal or vision for the people who are being led, and to motivate people to pursue and eventually achieve the goal.”  and he had a kind of standard: “Tobacco Control, ...has one aim — the reduction and perhaps even eradication of the damage caused by tobacco.” 

Most of us don’t think that’s what medical or scientific journals are supposed to do. We expect journals are to provide good evidence as to whether tobacco is really a danger. If they lead by demanding high standards, it will then be up to political agencies and individual citizens to take appropriate action and achieve meaningful goals. Journals can lead by demanding accurate presentation of the science. The science motivates. 

Smith's article is twenty years old and the journals, in many areas like nutrition, are now substantially useless, in part, precisely because editors have a political mission and as Smith says "any hint that hidden political or business processes are influencing [those] decisions, then trust can be lost." The influences are likely the editors' own scientific opinions which usually tend toward the status quo or the party line. The current BMJ leads us away from good nutritional science (notwithstanding some pretence of fairness). The current editor, Fiona Godlee, for examples, is counseling doctors to undertake vigilante action towards the "reduction and perhaps even eradication" of red meat. 

Solutions to the problems with the journal have been proposed -- levels of acceptance, certification of reviewers from both sides of a controversy -- and have been ignored. Many critics claim that the  main cause is bias on the part of editors and reviewers. Smith's piece appears to be some kind of plea of nolo contendere.