JAMA Editor Calls Critic a "Nobody And A Nothing"

Yesterday, I reported on a dustup between Jonathan Leo, a neuroanatomy professor at Lincoln Memorial University in Tennessee, and Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA and an alleged foe of conflict of interest in academic publishing. Leo and his colleague Jeffrey Lacasee, an assistant professor of social work at Arizona State University, had raised a ruckus with the journal for an unreported conflict in a study of the use of Lexapro and psychotherapy in post-stroke patients published in JAMA last year. The lead author had gotten money from Lexapro's maker in the past, but didn't report it to the journal.

The Wall Street Journal's health blog is now reporting some details of Leo and JAMA's exchange and it sure makes the journal look stupid, especially considering that Leo and Lacasse were helping to journal hew to its mission on rooting out conflicts of interest:

"Leo says he received an angry call from JAMA executive deputy editor Phil Fontanarosa last week, shortly after Leo’s article was published on the BMJ Web site. 'He said, "Who do you think you are,"' says Leo. “He then said, ‘You are banned from JAMA for life. You will be sorry. Your school will be sorry. Your students will be sorry.” Fontanarosa referred a call for comment to a JAMA spokeswoman, who said Leo’s retelling of the conversation was 'inaccurate.'

"'He did talk to the guy, but he said he didn’t threaten him,' the spokeswoman said. 'It was something along the lines of not setting a good example for students. He didn’t say he would be banned. He didn’t think Leo was taking a very good approach by taking this confidential process within JAMA out to media and another medical journal. It’s just not the way things are handled here.'

"The call from Fontanarosa was followed up by ones from JAMA editor-in-chief Catherine DeAngelis to Leo’s superiors, Leo says. He said she asked his superiors to get him to retract his article in the BMJ. Leo says he decided to call DeAngelis directly to find out what, in particular, she might be objecting to. He said she was 'very upset' but didn’t make specific complaints about the article.

"In a conversation with us, DeAngelis was none too happy to be questioned about the dust-up with Leo.

"'This guy is a nobody and a nothing' she said of Leo. 'He is trying to make a name for himself. Please call me about something important.' She added that Leo 'should be spending time with his students instead of doing this.'

"When asked if she called his superiors and what she said to them, DeAngelis said 'it is none of your business.' She added that she did not threaten Leo or anyone at the school."

You begin to wonder who the hell the folks running JAMA think they are and you have to wonder if they were actually going to force the study author to reveal his conflict, as he did in JAMA earlier this week, or if JAMA was pressed to do so by what Leo and Lacasse published on the British Medical Journal website last week.

Either way, I hope JAMA's board looks into this affair, which seems to be way out of order.