Academic conflict of interest

Perspectives on non-financial conflicts of interest in health-related journals: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review was to systematically review the literature on how non-financial conflicts of interest (nfCOI) are defined and evaluated, and the strategies suggested for their management in health-related and biomedical journals. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for peer reviewed studies published in English between 1970 and December 2023 that addressed at least one of the following: the definition, evaluation, or management of non-financial conflicts of interest. From 658 studies, 190 studies were included in the review. nfCOI were discussed most commonly in empirical (22%; 42/190), theoretical (15%; 29/190) and "other" studies (18%; 34/190) - including commentary, perspective, and opinion articles. nfCOI were addressed frequently in the research domain (36%; 68/190), publication domain (29%; 55/190) and clinical practice domain (17%; 32/190). Attitudes toward nfCOI and their management were divided into two distinct groups. The first larger group claimed that nfCOI were problematic and required some form of management, whereas the second group argued that nfCOI were not problematic, and therefore, did not require management. Despite ongoing debates about the nature, definition, and management of nfCOI, many articles included in this review agreed that serious consideration needs to be given to the prevalence, impact and optimal mitigation of non-financial COI.

PEERING, VIEWING AND REVIEWING: WHAT MAKES A PEER REVIEW GOOD

Peer review is an integral part of an ethical scientific publication process. Though not perfect, it has not been replaceable in the last couple of centuries since the advent of scientific journals. Recent innovations include online anonymized credits for peer review that can be used to augment an academician’s resume. Submissions and retraction are ever growing, increasing the demands from peer reviewers. The rewards may not seem commensurate but any person of science should contribute to peer review as a guardian of science. This short review looks at the ideal peer review along with inherent challenges. It makes suggestions on how novice and intermediate reviewers can improve their contributions as well as introduces various resources relevant for peer review.

PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE PUBLISHING ENTERPRISE: FOCUS ON JOURNAL EDITORS

Editors play a central role and form an essential link in the publication process. Consequently, they hold considerable influence as to how the literature is molded, and what eventually gets published. In addition to their standard editorial responsibilities, holding that amount of power, editors have extremely high responsibilities to declare any conflicts of interest (COIs) internal to, and external to, the peer review process, particularly those involving personal relationships and networks. This is because they also exist in the peer community, can be high-profile public figures, and form a very unique and restricted – in terms of size, membership and exclusivity – set of individuals. Consequently, editors need to declare their COIs openly, transparently, and publicly on their editor board profiles, and as part of their curriculum vitae. Without such declarations, the greater risk is that editors might have unregulated freedom to enforce their own individual or group biases, through hidden relationships and networks, including the possibility of hiding instances of favoritism, cronyism and nepotism. In the worst-case scenario, this might reflect editorial corruption. Hidden COIs in authors, which tend to be the focus of the academic publishing establishment, including in codes of conduct and ethical guidelines such as those by COPE and the ICMJE, tend to down-play editorial COIs, or restrict them to scrutiny during the peer review process. This opinion piece examines whether there is a systemic problem with under-reported editorial COIs, particularly personal and non-financial COIs, that extend beyond the peer review process and their editorial positions. Greater awareness, debate, and education of this issue are needed.

Quality of pediatric clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of a comprehensive evaluation for pediatric clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years. Here, we assessed the quality of pediatric CPGs, considering factors that might affect their quality. The aim of the study is to promote a more coherent development and application of CPGs.

METHODS

Pediatric CPGs published in PubMed, MedLive, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and World Health Organization between 2017 and 2019 were searched and collected. Paired researchers conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). Linear regression analysis determined the factors affecting CPGs' quality.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 216 CPGs, which achieved a mean score of 4.26 out of 7 points (60.86%) in the AGREE II assessment. Only 6.48% of the CPGs reached the "recommend" level. The remaining 69.91% should have been modified before recommendation, while the other 23.61% did not reach the recommended level at all. The overall quality of recent pediatric CPGs was higher than previously, and the proportion of CPGs with low-quality decreased over time. However, there were still too few CPGs that reached a high-quality level. The "applicability" and "rigor of development" domains had generally low scores. CPGs formulated by developing countries or regions, those that are not under an organizations or groups responsibility, and those that used non-evidence-based methods were found to be associated with poorer quality in different domains as independent or combinational factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of pediatric CPGs still needs to be improved. Specifically, a quality control before applying new CPGs should be essential to ensure their quality and applicability.

Reporting of conflict of interest and sponsorship in dental journals

OBJECTIVE

Detailed information on potential conflict of interest (COI) and sponsorship is pivotal for the adequate understanding and appropriate interpretation of the reported study results. The reporting of COI and sponsorship and any potential associations with study characteristics in publications of all dental journals with impact factor was examined.

METHODS

The Web of Science database was searched, in March 2019, for articles published from February 28, 2018 to March 1, 2019. A random a sample of 1000 articles in English was selected. Two independent authors extracted the following article characteristics: type of article, dental field, number of authors, country/continent affiliation of the first author, dental journal, journal impact factor, number of citations, Altmetric score, type of COI and sponsorship. Disagreements during data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the selected variables and multinomial logistic regression was implemented to assess the association between COI, sponsorship, and the other variables.

RESULTS

3% of dental publications declared a COI, whereas in 32.5% of publications the presence of COI was unclear. The most prevalent type of COI was financial (n = 26). Non-profit organizations funded 37.2% of the articles, while the sponsorship for 40.4% articles was unclear. Regression analysis showed that publications reporting COI had greater odds of receiving sponsorship from for-profit sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship and COI information seem to be underreported in dental journals. Efforts should be made by authors, journals, and publishers to provide more comprehensive information to allow the reader to understand the potential impact of sponsorship and COI on study results.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The underreporting of COI and sponsorship in dental articles hinders the interpretation of findings by readers. The results of the present study bring attention to this important topic as well as guide further improvements on the reporting of COI and sponsorship in dental articles.