Editorial independence at the BMJ

Editor—I am deeply disappointed to read Sackett's smear of JAMA,¹ especially in contrast with his invaluable support during and after a difficult, but ultimately invigorating, episode of JAMA's long and proud history of editorial independence.

Moreover, I am shocked that the BMJ would publish so baseless a defamation of JAMA, whose high regard has been so courageously earned. These assertions are particularly disappointing coming from a member of the BMJ's editorial board whose previous reputation has been to promote evidence in medicine.

In fact, despite Sackett's allegations, there has been no suppression of JAMA's papers or influence on editorial decisions by the American Medical Association (AMA) or by advertisers. The reputation of JAMA speaks for itself, as defined not only by the quality and quantity of manuscripts received but also by the high impact factor and worldwide readership. JAMA, the AMA, and the BMJ's readers deserve an explanation and an apology.