While this article correctly reports that the percentage of DSM-5 panelists with reported ties to industry is greater than for those who developed DSM-IV, it erroneously implies that the situation with regard to possible influence of industry on the DSM developmental process has gotten worse since DSM-IV. Although it mentions the fact that DSM-5 implemented for each DSM-5 participant a new requirement for a $10,000 per year limit from all industry sources, it does so only in passing in the section on continuing "gaps" in the DSM-5 COI policy. This is a huge change from DSM-IV; not only did DSM-IV not require reporting of financial ties, but there were also no limits imposed; as has been reported in the past, some DSM-IV experts and advisors received sums exceeding $100,000 per year from industry. Common sense suggests that the risk of industry influence is proportional to the amount of money involved. While DSM-5 has not completely elminiated industry ties, its imposition of a $10,000 per year limit greatly reduces the potential for financial considerations to have any influence on decision making, since the incentives to do so are greatly reduced.