Avoiding currently unavoidable conflicts of interest in medical publishing by transparent peer review

Editorial Peer Reviewers as Shepherds, Rather Than Gatekeepers

The journals of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research [JBMR] and its sister journal JBMR Plus) recognize peer review, whether pre- or post-publication, as an essential guard of scientific integrity and rigor that shapes academic discourse in our field. In this Perspective, we present a vision and philosophy of peer review in a rapidly changing publishing landscape. We emphasize the importance of journal peer reviewers as active players in shaping collegial behavior in the musculoskeletal research community and provide information about benefits and resources available for reviewers and reviewers-in-training. Publishing is becoming increasingly transparent, bringing benefits to authors, to reviewers, and to the scientific community at large. We discuss new initiatives such as transparent peer review and preprint servers, the ways they are changing scientific publishing, and how JBMR is responding to broaden the impact of musculoskeletal research. We emphasize the need to change any perception of peer reviewers as gatekeepers to viewing them as shepherds, who partner with authors and editors in the publishing endeavor. Promoting access, transparency, and collegiality in the way we assess science in our community will elevate its quality, clarify its communication, and increase its societal impact. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Conflicts of interest disclosure policies among Chinese medical journals: A cross-sectional study

IMPORTANCE

Conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies are critical to enhancing the integrity of research. However, it is unclear how Chinese medical journals interpret and enforce such policies.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this investigation is to determine the current status of COI disclosure policy enforcement in Chinese medical journals and to promote comprehensive COI policies.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study conducted from September 1st to October 29th 2017, journal instructions, websites and print issues of journals indexed by the Core Journals of China (version 2014), in the medical and health sector, were reviewed to identify whether COI disclosure policies existed and how complete these policies were.

RESULTS

Of 248 eligible journals, 78 (31%) mentioned COI policies; 9 (4%) applied standardized disclosure forms; 18 (7%) required disclosure statements in articles; 4 (2%) mentioned policy bases; none validated disclosed COIs; 2 (1%) mentioned how they dealt with breaches; 18 (7%) involved the management of disclosed COIs; and 62 (25%) and 55 (22%) noted financial and nonfinancial COIs, respectively. Seventy-eight journals (31%) mentioned COIs in research and authors' obligation towards disclosure; 2 (1%) and 6 (2%) mentioned family members' and institutional COIs, respectively. Twenty-two and 11 journals mentioned at least one form of financial and nonfinancial COI type in research, respectively. Seven journals (3%) required disclosure of the source of financial support in research, but no journals mentioned the amount of support. Seven (3%) and 12 (5%) journals mentioned COIs in the editorial process and peer-review, respectively. Clinical journals (45%) paid more attention to COI policies than non-clinical journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of Chinese medical journals had COI policies, and of the journals that mentioned financial COIs most required nonfinancial COIs. However, the extent to which journals implemented COI policies was insufficient. There is a generic lack of standardized disclosure forms and management of COIs in most journals. The subject and details of COIs involved in the editorial and peer-review process received less attention than those in research.

Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

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.

Beware of the predatory science journal: A potential threat to the integrity of medical research

The issue of predatory journals has become increasingly more prevalent over the past decade, as the open-access model of publishing has gained prominence. Although the open-access model is well intentioned to increase accessibility of biomedical research, it is vulnerable to exploitation by those looking to corrupt medical academia and circumvent ethics and research standards. Predatory journals will achieve publication by either soliciting unsuspecting researchers who have legitimate research but fall victim to these predators or researchers looking to quickly publish their research without a thorough review process. Some features of predatory journals are a quick non-peer-review process, falsely listing or exaggerating the credibility of editorial board members, and either lack of or falsification of institutional affiliations and database listings. These predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of medical research, as they will infect the available literature with unsubstantiated articles, and allow low-quality research. A number of steps can be taken to prevent the spread and increase awareness of predatory publishers, and these must be done to maintain the integrity of medical academia. Clin. Anat. 30:767-773, 2017. © 2017Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Study Results in Environmental and Occupational Health Research

OBJECTIVES

To date, there is no comprehensive analysis of the relationship between financial conflict of interest (COI) and a potential publication bias in environmental and occupational health studies.

METHODS

We analyzed original research articles published in 2012 in 17 peer-reviewed journals. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were developed to evaluate the relationship between financial COI and the study outcome.

RESULTS

Of the 373 studies included in the analysis, 17.2% had a financial COI associated with organizations involved with the processing, use, or disposal of industrial and commercial products, and studies with this type of COI were more likely to report negative results (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 4.31), as were studies with any COI associated with the military (employment or funding; Adjusted Odds Ratio = 9.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show a clear relationship between direction of reported findings and specific types of financial COI.

Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process

Published medical research influences health care providers and policy makers, guides patient management, and is based on the peer review process. Peer review should prevent publication of unreliable data and improve study reporting, but there is little evidence that these aims are fully achieved. In the blinded systems, authors and readers do not know the reviewers' identity. Moreover, the reviewers' reports are not made available to readers. Anonymous peer review poses an ethical imbalance toward authors, who are judged by masked referees, and to the medical community and society at large, in case patients suffer the consequences of acceptance of flawed manuscripts or erroneous rejection of important findings. Some general medical journals have adopted an open process, require reviewers to sign their reports, and links online pre-publication histories to accepted articles. This system increases editors' and reviewers' accountability and allows public scrutiny, consenting readers understand on which basis were decisions taken and by whom. Moreover, this gives credit to reviewers for their apparently thankless job, as online availability of signed and scored reports may contribute to researchers' academic curricula. However, the transition from the blind to the open system could pose problems to journals. Reviewers may be more difficult to find, and publishers or medical societies could resist changes that may affect editorial costs and journals' revenues. Nonetheless, also considering the risk of competing interests in the medical field, general and major specialty journals could consider testing the effects of open review on manuscripts regarding studies that may influence clinical practice.