Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (JOM), first published in 1967, provides a source for publication of studies in nutritional and orthomolecular medicine. There is controversy surrounding the journal, as the validity of the field of orthomolecular medicine is not widely accepted by the mainstream medical community. As of 2006, the JOM is not included in the MEDLINE database.
Contents |
[edit] History
In 1967, physicians interested in megavitamin therapy started to generate their own medical journals. Dr. Abram Hoffer had previously published about 150 articles and books, but found it increasingly difficult to publish reports on nutrition and medicine. Hoffer claims that the orthomolecular medicine content was not acceptable to mainstream medical journals because of the clash with the APA over orthomolecular psychiatry and what Hoffer alleges to be extended conflicts of interest on the part of the APA.[1][2]
The Journal of Schizophrenia followed the formation of the Canadian Schizophrenia Foundation and the American Schizophrenia Association in the United States. Hoffer and Dr. Humphry Osmond, who developed the theory that schizophrenics suffer due to endogenous production of an adrenalin-based hallucinogen, were called before the Committee of Ethics of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to explain why they were publicizing a treatment, called xenobiotic psychiatry by Dr. Bernard Rimland, which was considered outside of standard psychiatric practice.[3] Hoffer claims that one of the assistant editors of the APA's American Journal of Psychiatry announced that he would never allow any article from the orthomolecular medicine group to appear in his journal.
[edit] Current status
Though repeated applications have been made, the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine has not been indexed by MEDLINE, a canonical database of biomedical literature. Journals are selected for MEDLINE by the National Library of Medicine, which uses unquantified criteria including scope and coverage, quality of content, quality of editorial work, intended audience, quality of the layout, printing, graphics, and illustrations.[4] However, exclusion from MEDLINE has been interpreted by those associated with JOM as confirmation of an alleged bias, possibly systemic,[5] against orthomolecular medicine.[6]
The editors of Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine compare JOM favorably with and as similar to Medical Hypotheses,[7] which is indexed.
[edit] Notes
- ^ Megavitamin Therapy In Reply To Task Force Report on Megavitamin and Orthomolecular Therapy in Psychiatry. Canadian Schizophrenia Foundation. August 1976
- ^ Abram Hoffer, Adventures in Psychiatry: The Scientific Memoirs of Dr. Abram Hoffer, KOS Publishing, Toronto, 2005 Review
- ^ Article by Dr. Hoffer, accessed 23 Sept 2006.
- ^ National Library of Medicine page on journal selection for MEDLINE, accessed 23 Sept 2006.
- ^ Hickey S. Censorship of medical journals. Rapid Responses to: Lexchin J, Light DW. Commercial influence and the content of medical journals. BMJ 2006; 332: 1444-1447
- ^ AW Saul, Editorial: Medline Bias, Townsend Letter, August/September 2006
- ^ AW Saul, Vitamin Therapy Censorship: Censorship of Vitamin Therapy Research by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, DoctorYourself.Com, Jan 2006, accessed 24 Sept 2006
