Industry payments to physician journal editors

Wong, Victoria S. S.; Avalos, Lauro N.; Callaham, Michael L.

doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.3359v1

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Editorialists for oncology randomized control trials with direct fCOI from a company were more likely to author an unduly favorable editorial for the cancer drugs manufactured by the same company compared with editorialists without such direct fCOI. 23 Wong et al 4 also showed that median general payments are higher for physician editors than other physicians within the same specialty. Our data complement that of these studies from a novel perspective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Industry payments from pharmaceutical companies to physicians are common. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Although many of these payments are related to research initiatives, a substantial proportion represent more general personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for meals and travel. 6,7 These payments create potential financial conflicts of interest (fCOIs) for physicians.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians?

Wright

Meyers

Chisamore

et al. 2022

JCO Oncology Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE: Many oncologists have relationships with industry. Previous work has shown that these payments are usually modest; however, there exist a subset of medical oncologists who receive more than $100,000 US dollars (USD) annually. Here, we describe the characteristics of these physicians. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Open Payments data set to identify all US-based medical oncologists/hematologists who received $100,000+ USD in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018. Open Payments and a web-based search were used to identify physician characteristics, demographics, research profile, and leadership positions. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine medical oncologists received > $100,000 USD in general payments. The median payment was $154,613 USD, and the total payment was $24.2 million USD. These high-payment physicians represent 1% of all US medical oncologists (N = 10,620) yet account for 37% of all industry payments in 2018. Sixty percent (84 of 139) and 21% (29 of 139) of these high-payment physicians hold hospital and specialty association leadership roles, respectively. One quarter (24%, 33 of 139) serve on journal editorial boards, and 10% (14 of 139) have authored clinical practice guidelines; 72% (100 of 139) hold faculty appointments. CONCLUSION: A small number of medical oncologists receive very high payments from the pharmaceutical industry. These physicians hold major leadership roles within oncology. Further work is needed to understand the extent to which these conflicts of interest may shape clinical practice and policy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians?

Wright

Meyers

Chisamore

et al. 2022

JCO Oncology Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of course, it should be added that the problem is a general one for mainstream medical publishing. It is an industry deeply conflicted on account of its nearly universal control by vested interests (Liu et al, 2017;Wong et al, 2017;Dal-Ré et al, 2019;Niforatos et al, 2020) that are shaping and cherry-picking results of published studies that turn out to be mostly "false" when examined closely (Ioannidis, 2005(Ioannidis, , 2007(Ioannidis, , 2016.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maternal Gestational Tdap Vaccination and Autism: A Critique of Becerra-Culqui et al. (2018)

Lyons‐Weiler¹,

Fujito²,

Pajer³

2022

Vaccine Theory Prac & Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report flaws and inconsistencies in a critically important study of autism risk following maternal Tdap vaccination. The authors of the 2018 study, Prenatal Tetanus, Diphtheria, Acellular Pertussis Vaccination and Autism Spectrum Disorder (BC18), concluded that Tdap gestational vaccination is not associated with increased autism risk and claimed to provide “evidence supporting the ACIP’s recommendation to vaccinate pregnant women”. Our observations, based on information from the study itself, challenge these conclusions. We find evidence of a peculiar study design and approach to data analysis forcing outcomes by arbitrary data adjustments, overlooked variables of importance such as Bordetella pertussis infection prevalence and vaccine injury rates, insufficient consideration of likely interactions between multiple historical medical challenges by vaccines and other interventions on their participants, exclusion from the study individuals likely at risk of vaccine intolerance due to genetics, and indications that the study samples were not representative of the general population. Their first-year data show a concerning spike in ASD rates, and their findings and conclusions did not hold up to real-world data, which currently reports 3.8% ASD rate in California. Our observations, based on information from the study itself, challenge the conclusions of Becerra-Culqui et al, 2018.

show abstract

“…Of course, this requires that the OA journal have a very strong and clear ethical COI policy for editors. This issue becomes even more pertinent when industry pays editors, as was shown with 64 per cent of 333 Btop tier^U.S.-based physician editors from thirty-five journals (Wong et al 2017). In addition, Paternoster and Brame (2015) argue that the Bpurpose of a scientific community is to provide a venue for researchers to have a thoughtful discussion about a set of answerable questions^(p. 9).…”

Section: Los [10]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

Silva

Dobránszki

Bhar³

et al. 2019

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editors have increasing pressure as scholarly publishing tries to shore up trust and reassure academics and the public that traditional peer review is robust, fail-safe, and corrective. Hidden conflicts of interest (COIs) may skew the fairness of the publishing process because they could allow the status of personal or professional relationships to positively influence the outcome of peer review or reduce the processing period of this process. Not all authors have such privileged relationships. In academic journals, editors usually have very specialized skills and are selected as agents of trust, entrusted with the responsibility of serving as quality control gate-keepers during peer review. In many cases, editors form extensive networks, either with other professionals, industry, academic bodies, journals, or publishers. Such networks and relationships may influence their decisions or even their subjectivity towards a set of submitting authors, paper, or institute, ultimately influencing the peer review process. These positions and relationships are not simply aspects of a curriculum, they are potential COIs. Thus, on the editorial board of all academic journals, editors should carry a COI statement that reflects their past history, as well as actual relationships and positions that they have, as these may influence their editorial functions.

show abstract

Industry payments to physician journal editors

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians?

Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians?

Maternal Gestational Tdap Vaccination and Autism: A Critique of Becerra-Culqui et al. (2018)

Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About