Reply to Solnick

TO THE EDITOR—The letter by Dr Solnick about his concerns of potential bias and/ or conflicts of interest by the authors of 2 recent reviews in Clinical Infectious Diseases raises important issues [1–3]. The journal and its editors recognize the need to provide our readers with updated information about new and evolving antimicrobial agents, written by acknowledged experts in the particular area. Such experts must have requisite experience and background to provide scientific information as well as clinical guidance. In the course of development of such drugs, pharmaceutical companies utilize such experts for guidance and clinical studies as well. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that these experts are called upon by CID as well as industry. To exclude such experts from providing expert opinion to the readership of CID invokes an a priori assumption that having research grants or contacts with industry fosters innate bias, which is in itself a form of bias and unfounded use of the doctrine of political correctness. CID and its editors are cognizant of these potential issues and, therefore, all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process. All authors must submit disclosure of conflicts of interest, which is an international standard. Every article submitted for consideration to the sections of CID referred to in Dr Solnick’s letter were assigned to the special section editor and reviewed by at least 2 external peer reviewers, who are content experts on the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. The reviewers rate the articles for importance and scientific validity and screen for any bias or inaccuracy that must be addressed by the authors prior to reaching any decision about publication. Subsequently, the revised manuscript and a recommendation are submitted to the Editor-in-Chief of CID, who makes the final decision. Although invited as reviews, not all articles are accepted. Once published, an open process proceeds whereby scientists and