Lataster R, Parry P. Amid Growing Evidence of Conflicts of Interest and Obdurate Groupthink in Medical Journals, Researchers Must Entertain Contrarian Ideas.
Cureus 2025;
17:e77895. [PMID:
39991340 PMCID:
PMC11847147 DOI:
10.7759/cureus.77895]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/23/2025] [Indexed: 02/25/2025] Open
Abstract
Mainstream medicine, like other academic fields, is shaped by prevailing paradigms and the dominant narratives they create. Over the past half-century, these paradigms have increasingly reflected the growing commercial influence of the pharmaceutical industry. Dominant narratives are closely tied to groupthink, to which medical journals are often subject. In addition, more "prestigious" medical journals tend to have further financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These dynamics limit scientific progress by suppressing awareness of the iatrogenic aspects of industry products and the benefits of alternative non-patentable and unpatentable medical products and therapeutic interventions. Journals need to adopt a more open policy to manuscripts that encompass contrarian perspectives to dominant narratives while still adhering to time-tested scientific values and methods.
Collapse