I wanted to respond to Dr. Weiner’s concerns about the recent article on the management of status epilepticus by Drs. Marco and Kozak. I also want to use this opportunity to describe to the readers of ACEP Now the process by which we handle unsolicited submissions to our magazine, which the concept for this particular article originated.

When assuming the role of Medical Editor-in-Chief, I instituted a more formal process by which emergency physicians can submit articles and case reports to our magazine. No doubt you have seen our solicitations for these.

Many emergency physicians, especially researchers, have the support of industry when conducting their work. But our readers deserve to be educated on cutting edge technology and advances in medicine. While I eschew direct involvement with industry in writing pieces for our readers—for instance, I once rejected a pitch from an insurance company who wanted to describe their efforts in treating social determinants of health and instead offered them an interview (they ultimately rejected that offer)—I struggle to balance our reader’s education on cutting edge technology while avoiding unwitting advertising of devices or pharmaceuticals.

In this specific case, I brought in our Associate Editor to review the broader topic of status epilepticus management, limiting discussion of the specific industry device to three sentences, and asked her to approach this issue with an independent and critical evaluation of the new technology.

As a news magazine, ACEP Now has asked for conflict of interest statements from our writers in the past. We remain watchful for the heavy hand of industry inside the pages of our magazine. My question to our readers is this…moving forward, should ACEP Now print authors’ conflict of interest statements?

Dr. Dark is the medical editor in chief of ACEP Now and an associate professor of emergency medicine at Baylor College of Emergency Medicine.