While bias against industry-funded research is widespread and, in the case of JAMA, formalized, it is contradicted by a non-industry sponsored study of research quality. The NIH-sponsored analysis published in the International Journal of Obesity found, in the words of the NYT, that "the quality of data reporting in industry-sponsored research does seem to be different from that in other research: It’s better."

The study "suggests that, while continued efforts to improve reporting quality are warranted, such efforts should be directed at nonindustry-funded research at least as much as at industry-funded research."

The NYT science columnist worries "what will happen if the best scientists become afraid to work with the sponsors that can afford to pay for the most thorough studies. What happens to the quality of future research? And should this new study give pause to JAMA’s editors? By stigmatizing industry-sponsored research, is their ‘hierarchy of purity’ doing more harm than good?" Since unwarranted biases harm the quality of scientific research and policies based on that research, the answer is: yes.

See IJO article "Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials"