Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

Abstract

This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.

Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials in high-impact ophthalmology journals and general medical journals: a systematic review

“…When a researcher’s interests are in conflict with their professional obligations, there is concern due to potential bias in study design and reporting, which can impact published results and patient care 26. In our study, we found that, in 64.7% of RCTs from ophthalmology-specific journals, all authors made an explicit declaration that they had no COI.…”

Duties of Members of Editorial Team in Academic Journal

“…Прозрачное представление финансовых и нефинансовых конфликтов интересов редакторов должно быть изначально заложено в их работе [21]. Наилучшей тактикой является декларирование инте-ресов всех членов редакции и редакционной коман-ды на интернет-платформе журналов и ежегодное обновление соответствующей информации.…”

Safeguarding the Integrity of Science Communication by Restraining 'Rational Cheating' in Peer Review

“…Other types of misconduct may take forms of unjustified and nasty comments on research, which contradicts the reviewers' data or points of view. Gender, race, geographical location, ideological and religious believes may also contribute to competing relationship and unjustified reviewer recommendations ( 4 , 14 ). Alas, such forms of misconduct are not often surfaced and the offenders rarely get their punishment.…”

“…Experts are increasingly concerned that biased reviewers, who often do not declare competing financial, academic, and other non-financial interests, provide unfair and overly negative comments favouring their own works and misleading responsible editors ( 4 ). An extreme form of such misconduct was coined by Paolucci and Grimaldo as 'rational cheating in peer review' ( 5 ).…”