title: What is ironic about wanting empirical support to justify changes in diagnostic criteria? Commentary on "the ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5".
abstract: Comments on the original article "The ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5" by A. E. Skodol et al. (see record 2013-45025-004). Zimmerman comments that concerns about the openness of the revision process and the signing of confidentiality agreements have been raised regarding the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) revision. These confidentiality agreements are reminiscent of the types of agreements the pharmaceutical industry used to force investigators to sign before funding studies. At most academic institutions, such agreements have been prohibited for some time now. Hopefully, the DSM-5 confidentiality agreements do not constrain the behind the scenes descriptions of the revision process appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, such as the article by Skodol et al. If these agreements do, in fact, limit what the authors can write, then the authors should disclose this information in the same manner that authors of industry-funded studies must reveal their sources of financial support and conflicts of interest.
authors.affiliation: Brown Medical School.
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zimmerman
mesh_terms: D026683:Advisory Committees; D032921:Consensus; D039721:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; D006801:Humans; D008960:Models, Psychological; D010554:Personality Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*