In the spirit of full disclosure

In the spirit of filled disclosure, we declare that we invited Dr Smith, Alexander, and Siegler to write the editorial that come [i]or[/i] go after [i]or[/i] behinds the article titled "Should Editorials in Peer-Reviewed Journals be Signed?" (1) to address ethical issues inherent to unsigned editorials. In doing in the way that we did not require them to reach any particular conclusion, and we indicated that we would be prepared to publish their submission, subdue to peer review, regardless of the conclusions reached.

We were stimulated to invite the editorial because the Editors of The Lancet published an editorial (2) about the freshly published American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines upon the diagnosis and management of cough (3) that was not flattering of the guidelines, the Cough Guidelines Writing Committee, the ACCP, and, indirectly, this journal; in addition, the editorial did not disclose who personally wrote it. In central nature it was an unsigned editorial.

As a past president of the ACCP (from 2003 to 2004) Chair of the ACCP Evidence-Based Cough Clinical Practice Guideline Committee, and Editor in Chief of CHEST, I admit that I was surprised and took issue with abundant that was written in The Lancet editorial and, along with David Gutterman, Chair of the Health and Science Policy Committee of the ACCP, we addressed all of our issues in a alphabetic character to the editor of The Lancet. (4) In the climate of replete disclosure, and when The Lancet requires that all clinical trials be registered before the first patient is enlisted and that each author of a alphabetic character to the editor declare that they have no conflict of interest, we would have preferr to have known who personally wrote the editorial that cogitation that the "Cough Guidelines stifle on Evidence" and that the Cough Guidelines Committee participated in a "hollow exercise." We encourage you to read the editorial written by means of Drs. Smith, Alexander, and Siegler, (1) The Lancet editorial (2) and our replication to it, (4) and the cough guidelines. (3) Then, you be the judge: should editorials in peer-reviewed journals (in 2006) be signed?

Richard s Irwin, MD, FCCP Northbrook, IL

REFERENCES

(1) Smith PJ Alexander GC Siegler M Should editorials in peer-reviewed journals be signed [editorial]? Chest 2006; 129:1395-1396

(2) Lancet. Cough guidelines strangle on evidence [editorial]. Lancet 2006; 367:276

(3) American corporation of Chest Physicians Cough Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and management of cough: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2006; 129(suppl):1S-292S

(4) Irwin R Gutterman DD American community of Chest Physicians" cough guidelines [letter] Lancet 2006; 367:981

Dr Irwin is Editor in Chief CHEST.

Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American community of Chest Physicians (www.chestjournal. org/misc/reprints.shtml).

Correspondence to: Richard s Irwin, MD, FCCP, Editor in Chief, CHEST, American corporation of Chest Physicians, 3300 Dundee Rd Northbrook, IL 60062; e-mail: rirwin@chestnet.org

COPYRIGHT 2006 American society of Chest Physicians

COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale Group