Conflict of interest disclosure policies and practices in peer-reviewed biomedical journals

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:We undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available. METHODS:We performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times. RESULTS:The response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request.CONCLUSION: Many more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published; the extent to which such ''secret disclosure'' may impact the integrity of the journal or the published work is not known.

Is It Time to Standardize Ethics Guiding the Peer Review Process?

“…In fact, it has been determined that of journals that require conflict of interest disclosures by authors, greater than 50% do not currently require editors or reviewers to disclose financial or other conflicts of interest (3). With two of the major publishers of scientific journals, Elsevier and Blackwell Publishing, and the HHS Office of Research of Integrity having offered suggested guidelines for ethical conduct in the peer review process (4-6), it is staggering that this number of peer-reviewed journals has been slow to adopt a standardized, written policy of ethics governing editors, reviewers and authors alike.…”

Políticas de conflito de interesses e exigências para divulgação em Revistas Científicas de Cardiologia Nacionais da Sociedade Europeia de Cardiologia

“…Only 3% of respondents published COI disclosures of peer reviewers and 12% published editors' COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information was available upon request. In this survey, estimates were directly provided by the corresponding editors but no information was taken directly from the actual publications 7 .…”

“…Therefore, COI should be made clear to the readers to facilitate their own judgement and interpretation of their relevance and potential implications. Authors are responsible for fully disclosing potential COI [6][7][8][9][10] . Failure to do so has shaken the confidence of the public, health professionals and scientists in the peerreviewed medical literature [6][7][8][9][10] .…”

“…The scientific community demands high ethical standards in biomedical research and the publication of scientific content [1][2][3][4][5] . During the past decade, disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) (also called competing loyalties, competing interests or dual commitments) has been considered as key to guaranteeing the credibility of the scientific process [6][7][8][9][10] . Biases in design, analysis and interpretation of studies may arise when authors or sponsors have vested interests [6][7][8][9][10] .…”

“…Further efforts to improve transparency and protect the integrity of research, including specific recommendations and guidelines to disclose COI, have been recently proposed by many organisations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] . However, ensuring adequate reporting of all sources of financial support is becoming increasingly challenging for editors as a result of the growing complexity of funding mechanisms.…”