| The Lancet | |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title (ISO) | Lancet |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| Language | English |
| Edited by | Richard Horton |
| Publication details | |
| Publisher | Elsevier |
| Publication history | 1823–present |
| Frequency | Weekly |
| Impact factor (2010) |
33.633 |
| Indexing | |
| ISSN | 0140-6736 (print) 1474-547X (web) |
| LCCN | sf82002015 |
| CODEN | LANCAO |
| OCLC number | 01755507 |
| Links | |
The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals.[1] The Lancet was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, an English surgeon who named it after the surgical instrument called a lancet, as well as after the term "lancet arch", a window with a sharp pointed arch, to indicate the "light of wisdom" or "to let in light". It publishes original research articles, review articles ("seminars" and "reviews"), editorials, book reviews, correspondence, as well as news features and case reports. The Lancet has been owned by Elsevier since 1991. As of 1995[update], the editor-in-chief is Richard Horton. The journal has editorial offices in London, New York, and Beijing.
Contents |
In the 2010 Journal Citation Reports, The Lancet's impact factor was ranked second among general medical journals, at 33.63, after The New England Journal of Medicine (53.48).[2]
The Lancet also has several speciality journals all bearing the parent title: The Lancet Neurology (neurology), The Lancet Oncology (oncology), and The Lancet Infectious Diseases (infectious diseases), all of which publish original research and reviews. These three journals have established significant reputations as important journals in their medical speciality. According to the 2010 Journal Citation Reports by Thomson Reuters, The Lancet Neurology's impact factor is 21.66, The Lancet Oncology 17.76, and The Lancet Infectious Diseases 16.14.[2] There is also an online journal for students entitled The Lancet Student.
Prior to 1990, The Lancet had volume numbering that reset every year. Issues in January to June were in volume i, with the rest in volume ii. In 1990, the journal moved to a sequential volume numbering scheme, with two volumes per year. Volumes were retro-actively assigned to the years prior to 1990, with the first issue of 1990 being assigned volume 335, and the last issue of 1989 assigned volume 334. The table of contents listing on ScienceDirect uses this new numbering scheme.[3]
The Lancet has taken a political stand on several important medical and non-medical issues. Recent examples include criticism of the World Health Organization, rejecting claims of the efficacy of homoeopathy as a therapeutic option,[4] disapproval during the time Reed Exhibitions (a division of Reed Elsevier) hosted arms industry fairs, and a call in 2003 for tobacco to be made illegal.[5]
The Lancet was severely criticized after it published a paper in 1998, in which the authors suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.[6] In February 2004 The Lancet published a partial retraction of the paper.[7] The editor-in-chief, Richard Horton, went on the record to say the paper had "fatal conflicts of interest" because the study's lead author, Andrew Wakefield, had a serious conflict of interest that he had not declared to The Lancet.[8] The journal completely retracted the paper on 2 February 2010, after Wakefield was found to have acted unethically in conducting the research.[9]
The Lancet also published a controversial estimate of the Iraq War's Iraqi death toll—around one hundred thousand—in 2004. In 2006 a follow-up study by the same team suggested that the violent death rate in Iraq was not only consistent with the earlier estimate, but had increased considerably in the intervening period (see Lancet surveys of casualties of the Iraq War). The second survey estimated that there had been 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war. The 95% confidence interval was 392,979 to 942,636. 1,849 households that contained 12,801 people were surveyed.[10]
In January 2006, it was revealed that data had been fabricated in an article[11] by the Norwegian cancer researcher Jon Sudbø and 13 co-authors published in The Lancet in October 2005.[12][13] Several articles in other scientific journals were withdrawn following the withdrawal in The Lancet. Within a week, the high-impact New England Journal of Medicine published an expression of editorial concern regarding its published research papers by the same author and in November 2006, the journal withdrew two oral cancer studies led by the Norwegian researcher.[14]
In a 2009 editorial, the journal accused Pope Benedict XVI of publicly distorting scientific evidence on condoms to promote Catholic doctrine on chastity in AIDS prevention.[15] The Vatican defended itself by pointing to an earlier Lancet article published in 2000 which asserted that condoms could not possibly be sufficient in solving the AIDS crisis.[16]
A December 2003 editorial by the journal, titled "How do you sleep at night, Mr Blair?", called for tobacco use to be completely banned in the UK. The Royal College of Physicians rejected their argument. John Britton, chairman of the college's tobacco advisory group, praised the journal for discussing the health problem, but he concluded that a "ban on tobacco would be a nightmare." Amanda Sandford, spokesperson for the anti-tobacco group Action on Smoking and Health, stated that criminalizing a behaviour 26% of the population commit "is ludicrous." She also said, "We can't turn the clock back. If tobacco were banned we would have 13 million people desperately craving a drug that they would not be able to get." The deputy editor of The Lancet responded to the criticism by arguing that no other measures besides a total ban would likely be able to reduce tobacco use.[17]
The smokers rights group FOREST stated that the editorial gave them "amusement and disbelief". Director Simon Clark called the journal "fascist" and argued that it is hypocritical to ban tobacco while allowing unhealthy junk foods, alcohol consumption, and participation in extreme sports. Health Secretary John Reid reiterated that his government is committed to helping people give up smoking. He added, "Despite the fact that this is a serious problem, it is a little bit extreme for us in Britain to start locking people up because they have an ounce of tobacco somewhere."[18]
In August 2010, The Lancet Infectious Diseases published an article about an enzyme conferring multi-drug-resistance properties in bacteria,[19] which had previously been named New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase or NDM-1 based on the assumed origin of the mechanism.[20][21] The article reported 44 clinical isolates of bacteria positive for NDM-1 from Chennai, 26 from Haryana, 37 (from 29 patients) from the UK, and 73 from other sites in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Of the 29 UK patients, 17 had a history of travel to India or Pakistan within 1 year, and 14 had been admitted to hospital in these countries. The authors of the article cited medical tourism to India for the spread of bacteria carrying NDM-1, which the Indian government denied.[22][23]
A December 2010 article determined that alcohol had the worst medical and social effects compared to other recreational substances such as heroin and crack cocaine. The drugs marijuana, ecstasy, and LSD scored far lower in terms of related harms. The authors did not advocate alcohol prohibition, but they suggested that the government raise the price of alcohol until it was no longer widely available.[24] Gavin Partington, spokesman of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, responded to the report by saying that alcohol abuse affects "a minority" who needs "education, treatment and enforcement". He also remarked that millions of British citizens enjoy alcohol as "a regular and enjoyable social drink".[25]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||