From: Peter Arnold [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 January 2019 5:44 PM

It seems as if the writers are discussing two separate things.

1. the use of the word ‘editor’

2. different types of journals

          2a. college/society

          2b. large medical organisation (AMA, BMA, CMA, NZMA etc)

          2c. large publisher (OUP etc)

1. Surely editors (copy, layout etc) are paid. I’m a previous Deputy
President of the Australian Society of Editors (NSW). The rates of pay
were a perennial topic of discussion.

2. Some E-i-C’s are paid… especially in the 2b. category. (eg BMA,
JAMA, NEJM, MJA). I was on a recruiting panel for such an E-i-C for
the MJA.

And we hear all about it when they get sacked for being too independent!

3. E-i-C’s in the 2a. category are usually volunteers (been there,
done that – for years (The Australian GP).

So the discussion is mixing ‘oranges and apples’.

People often think that their own particular experience can be
generalised for people in quite different circumstances. That seems to
be what is happening in this discussion. “ It depends what you mean by
‘…’ ” CM Joad used to challenge on The Brains Trust.

My fundamental (financial) issue (CoI: I do not charge for my editing)
is: why should the authors of papers, the peer reviewers and the
E-i-Cs of the 2c. journals (profit-seeking – in the case of the Big
Five, indecent profit-seeking) give their time and effort to line the
pockets of these millionaires?

It’s a different story for the 2a. and 2b journals. If I’d been paid
by those journals, as author, peer reviewer and editor, I’ve have been
a wealthy man in my retirement – and the Australian Tax Office would
have benefited appropriately.

Dr Peter Arnold OAM BSc MBBCh [Witwatersrand 1961] BA [UNE]

Member, Editorial Board, International Journal of Epidemiology
Former Member, Editorial Advisory Committee, Medical Journal of Australia
Former Editor, The Australian GP

Sydney, Australia