Editors’ and authors’ individual conflicts of interest disclosure and journal transparency. A cross-sectional study of high-impact medical specialty journals

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the fulfilment of authors’ and editors’ individual disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in a group of highly influential medicine journals across a variety of specialties.DesignCross-sectional analysis.Setting and participantsTop-ranked five journals as per 2017 Journal Citation Report impact factor of 26 medical, surgery and imaging specialties.InterventionsObservational analysis.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPercentage of journals requiring disclosure of authors’ and editors’ individual potential conflicts of interest (CoI). Journals that were listed as followers of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations, members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and linked to a third party (ie, college, professional association/society, public institution).ResultsAlthough 99% (129/130) of journals required author’s CoI disclosure, only 12% (16/130) reported individual editors’ potential CoIs. Forty−five per cent (58/130) of journals were followers of the ICMJE Recommendations, and 73% (95/130) were COPE members. Most (69%; 90/130) were linked to a college, professional society/association or public institution. Only one journal did not have policies on individual authors’ and editors’ CoI disclosure.ConclusionVery few high-impact medical journals disclosed their editorial teams’ individual potential CoIs—conversely, almost all required disclosure of authors’ individual CoIs. Journal followers of the ICMJE Recommendations should regularly disclose the editors’ individual CoIs, as this is the only legitimate way to ask the same transparency of authors.

Limited engagement with transparent and open science standards in the policies of pain journals: a cross-sectional evaluation

“…It is encouraging to see that the majority of pain journals satisfied all four requirements for the ICMJE disclosure of conflicts of interest. This finding is consistent with Dal-Ré et al 42 that showed 99% of 130 highest ranked medical specialty journals require authors to disclose conflicts of interest. However, author adherence to reporting conflict of interests, reliability of the self-reporting and what conflicts should be disclosed remains an unresolved and significant problem in medical research 43.…”

The limitations to our understanding of peer review

“…Such editorial biases also relate to issues of epistemic diversity within the editorial process itself, which can lead to knowledge homogenisation, a perpetuation of the 'Matthew effect' in scholarly research [52,53] and inequities in the diffusion of scientific ideas [54]. These issues are further exacerbated by the fact that editors often fail to disclose their conflicts of interest, which can be viewed as compromising their objectivity [55,56], and the extent to which editors treat their reports seriously, as well as any dialogue between them and reviewers and authors [57]. For example, how an editor might decide to signal to authors which reviewer comments are more important to address and which can be overlooked and consequently, how authors might then deal with these.…”

Mandatory disclosure of financial interests of journals and editors

“…Another study of websites of 130 top specialty medical journals in 2018 showed that only 45% endorsed the ICMJE recommendations and 12% disclosed individual editors’ COIs whereas 99% required authors to disclose their COIs (table 1). 7 In this study, 69% of the journals were linked to a professional organisation (society, association, or college) or a public institution7; the professional community and the public expect such institutions to be transparent about their work, including journal publication.…”

“…This is despite it being an ICMJE member 8. Similarly, prominent journals linked to public health organisations like Eurosurveillance from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and Emerging Infectious Diseases and Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, do not disclose their editors’ COIs 7. Whereas payments to some journal editors have been reported in the US because of the existence of a national database on industry payments to physicians,1011 there are few reports on industry payments to healthcare professionals in other countries12131415 and none regarding payments to journal editors.…”

“…Currently, the few publishers that disclose editors’ COIs, implement the policy inconsistently. For example, within BMJ, the flagship journal ( The BMJ ) discloses the COIs of all editorial team members, but other BMJ journals disclose conflicts for one or a few members of their editorial teams 7. Consistency across journals in the same group would increase the trust of the professional and general public in the transparency and consistency of publishers’ policies and work.…”