I thank Dr Black for his observations.  Anaesthesia, as a journal member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), is proud to maintain the highest editorial standards.  I make no apologies that, when seeking to provide our readership with the latest scientific information on new drugs or equipment, we go to the most knowledgeable experts in the field.  Inevitably, the world being as it is, these individuals may have been retained in a consultative capacity by the company in whose product they have expertise.

Does this mean that they should, thereafter, be forbidden from sharing their knowledge and opinions in a peer-review journal?  Of course not.  It does mean that any potential conflict of interests should be clearly stated, allowing readers to reach their own conclusions as to the value of their contribution.  Dr Black has reached his, but others might not agree.  In any event, the paper can hardly be considered as an advertorial for suggamadex; the authors conclude, inter alia, that: “The ultimate clinical utility of sugammadex will be clear only after large-scale clinical use” – scarcely a ringing endorsement!

Anaesthesia