Report of the ombudsman-ethicist, 2002

When an appeal for a third review was made, the editors advised the author to write to the ombudsman. In preparing an opinion I made myself familiar with the details of the editorial review and decision-making process at CMAJ and studied the written record of this particular manuscript. Submitted articles are sent to review by experts in the researchers' field - the external review - but all are then reviewed by each of 6 to 8 associate editors on the journal's internal reviewing committee. The final decision for or against publication is made openly in the internal committee meeting. Each of the associate editors is asked to give an opinion on the suitability of the submission for publication and on any need for revision. In the case in question, this process had led to rejection of the paper after it had gone twice through external and internal review. This is my first report as CMAJ's ombudman and ethicist. I am learning about the Journal and about publication ethics. As more authors, reviewers and readers become aware of the office of CMAJ ombudsman, it is my hope that they will, if appropriate, write to me with their concerns. We require that any complaint about unfair treatment or behaviour of CMAJ editors or staff be addressed first to the editors. If the editors provide an unsatisfactory response I would be very willing to consider the matter. 1. Hoey J, Todkill AM. Complaints and conundrums: an ombudsman-ethicist for CMAJ [editorial]. CMAJ 2002;166(10):1281-2.