[lauritz]

Of course, that would be the ideal way of combating this. If you're talking about financial stakes in certain findings however, these might be hard to prove (and stalking colleagues to prove they're playing dirty is not and shouldn't be in the spirit of the academic debate).

I think the procedure itself entails a conflict of interest: If you dispute certain findings by certain researchers (and you have a clear agenda), how can you be trusted to write an objective year-end summary of relevant findings in the field? I think these kinds of articles are the root of the problem. Of course, it would be far from easy to find an objective voice interested in writing these without having an 'ulterior opinion'. Still, I think editors should at least bar researchers from summarizing what they have a stake in (or summarizing a debate that they have taken part in during the last couple of months).