Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure Policies of Environmental, Occupational, and Public Health Journals

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.

Disclosing and Managing Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Publications

In the last decade, there has been increased recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing non-financial conflicts of interests to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, and trustworthiness of scientific research. While funding agencies and academic institutions have had policies for addressing non-financial interests in grant peer review and research oversight since the 1990s, scientific journals have been only recently begun to develop such policies. An impediment to the formulation of effective journal policies is that non-financial interests can be difficult to recognize and define. Journals can overcome this problem by providing guidance concerning the types of non-financial interests that should be disclosed, including direct research interests, direct professional interests, expert testimony, involvement in litigation, holding a leadership position in a non-governmental organization, providing technical or scientific advice to a non-governmental organization, and personal or professional relationships. The guidance should apply to authors, editors, and reviewers.

A scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment

Uncertainty factors (UFs) are used to account for uncertainties and variability when setting exposure limits or guidance values. Starting from a proposal of a single UF of 100 to extrapolate from an animal NOAEL to a human acceptable exposure, the aspects of uncertainty and number of UFs have diversified and today there are several risk assessment guidelines that contain schemes of default UFs of varying complexity. In the present work, we scoped the scientific literature on default UFs to map developments regarding recommendations and evaluations of these. We identified 91 publications making recommendations for one or several UFs and 55 publications evaluating UFs without making explicit recommendations about numerical values; these were published between 1954 and 2021. The 2000s was the decade with the largest number of publications, interspecies differences and intraspecies variability being the most frequent topics. The academic sector has been the most active (76 out of 146 publications). Authors from the private sector more often presented UF recommendations, but differences between sectors regarding size of recommendations were not statistically significant. The empirical underpinning of the reviewed recommendations ranges from four to 462 chemicals, that is, relatively low numbers compared with the range of chemicals these default UFs are expected to cover. The recommended UFs have remained remarkably constant, with merely a slight decrease over time. Although chemical specific UFs are preferable, the widespread use of default UFs warrants further attention regarding their empirical and normative basis.

Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted

In the last 20 years, there has been a sharp increase in the incidence of retractions of articles published in scientific journals, the majority of which are due to research misconduct. In some cases, researchers have revised and republished articles that were retracted due to misconduct, which raises some novel questions concerning authorship. Suppose that an article is retracted because one of the authors fabricated or falsified some data, but the researchers decide to salvage the useable data, make appropriate revisions, and resubmit the article for publication. If the person who committed misconduct has made a significant contribution to the research reported in the revised paper, should they be named as an author to recognize this contribution or should they be denied authorship because they committed misconduct? This is a challenging issue because it involves the confluence of two research ethics domains that are usually dealt with separately, i.e., resolution of authorship disputes and adjudication of misconduct findings, as well as potential conflicts among norms that underlie authorship practices and misconduct adjudication. In this paper, we (1) describe some actual cases involving articles that were retracted for misconduct and republished; (2) review policies from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, and top fifteen biomedical journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for cases like these; and (3) analyze the ethical and policy issues that may arise in these situations.

Transparency of COVID-19-Related Research in Dental Journals

Objective

We aimed to assess the adherence to transparency practices (data availability, code availability, statements of protocol registration and conflicts of interest and funding disclosures) and FAIRness (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) of shared data from open access COVID-19-related articles published in dental journals available from the Europe PubMed Central (PMC) database.

Methods

We searched and exported all COVID-19-related open-access articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PMC database in 2020 and 2021. We detected transparency indicators with a validated and automated tool developed to extract the indicators from the downloaded articles. Basic journal- and article-related information was retrieved from the PMC database. Then, from those which had shared data, we assessed their accordance with FAIR data principles using the F-UJI online tool (f-uji.net).

Results

Of 650 available articles published in 59 dental journals, 74% provided conflicts of interest disclosure and 40% funding disclosure and 4% were preregistered. One study shared raw data (0.15%) and no study shared code. Transparent practices were more common in articles published in journals with higher impact factors, and in 2020 than in 2021. Adherence to the FAIR principles in the only paper that shared data was moderate.

Conclusion

While the majority of the papers had a COI disclosure, the prevalence of the other transparency practices was far from the acceptable level. A much stronger commitment to open science practices, particularly to preregistration, data and code sharing, is needed from all stakeholders.

Ten years later: a review of the US 2009 institute of medicine report on conflicts of interest and solutions for further reform

Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare are increasingly discussed in the literature, yet these relationships continue to influence healthcare. Research has consistently shown that financial COIs shape prescribing practices, medical education and guideline recommendations. In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) published Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education-one of the most comprehensive reviews of empirical research on COIs in medicine. Ten years after publication of theIOM's report, we review the current state of COIs within medicine. We also provide specific recommendations for enhancing scientific integrity in medical research, practice, education and editorial practices.

The disinformation playbook: how industry manipulates the science-policy process-and how to restore scientific integrity

For decades, corporate undermining of scientific consensus has eroded the scientific process worldwide. Guardrails for protecting science-informed processes, from peer review to regulatory decision making, have suffered sustained attacks, damaging public trust in the scientific enterprise and its aim to serve the public good. Government efforts to address corporate attacks have been inadequate. Researchers have cataloged corporate malfeasance that harms people's health across diverse industries. Well-known cases, like the tobacco industry's efforts to downplay the dangers of smoking, are representative of transnational industries, rather than unique. This contribution schematizes industry tactics to distort, delay, or distract the public from instituting measures that improve health-tactics that comprise the "disinformation playbook." Using a United States policy lens, we outline steps the scientific community should take to shield science from corporate interference, through individual actions (by scientists, peer reviewers, and editors) and collective initiatives (by research institutions, grant organizations, professional associations, and regulatory agencies).

Nonfinancial conflict of interest in peer-review: Some notes for discussion

Strong beliefs can influence the way we deal with emotionally charged topics. Researchers, editors, and reviewers are not an exception. Declaring such nonfinancial conflict of interest when handling or reviewing submitted articles is often obligatory; however, the declaration is not a license to submit a biased review with personal insults or to break the journal's guidelines. This kind of poor practice can be a clear sign of the seriousness of conflict of interest. In this article, I argue that hostile, unethical, and biased behavior of reviewers and editors often arises from a serious nonfinancial conflict of interest, which should not be ignored or undermined.

Management of bias and conflict of interest among occupational exposure limit expert groups

Our aim was to evaluate policies and procedures for management of conflict of interest (CoI) and other sources of bias, implemented in Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) expert groups. First, we compiled procedural criteria applicable to OEL-setting, based on literature on CoI and systematic reviews. Second, we identified 58 global OEL-sources and sought the underlying expert groups and operating procedures. We identified eleven active groups, of which five have documented CoI policies. In all five, CoI management is based on declarations of interests (DoIs) and removal of experts from decisions in which they have an interest. Notable differences include publication of DoIs (three of five groups), limitation of DoI to current interests (two groups), quantitative limits for financial interests (none specified to ≥€10,000 per interest), control procedures for undisclosed CoI (one group), and procedures in case of discovery of undisclosed CoI (three groups). Methods to evaluate study quality are described by three groups, while reproducible and comprehensive strategies to identify and select data receive less attention. We conclude that procedures to manage CoI and bias are not broadly implemented, or at least not openly and transparently communicated. This lack of visible procedures is remarkable, considering OEL's impact on health and economy.

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.

Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?

U.S. federal policy defines research misconduct as fabrication of data, falsification of data, or plagiarism (FFP). In recent years, some have argued or suggested that the definition of research misconduct should also include sexual harassment, sabotage, deceptive use of statistics, and failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest (COI). While the arguments for revising the definition of misconduct used by federal agencies to include misbehaviors other than FFP are not convincing at this point in time, the arguments for revising definitions used by other organizations, such as professional societies, universities, or journals, may be. Since these other organizations play an important role in promoting integrity in science and deterring unethical behavior, they may consider adopting definitions of misconduct that extend beyond FFP. Debates about the definition of research misconduct are a normal and healthy part of broader discussions about integrity in science and how best to promote it. These debates should continue even if the federal definition of misconduct remains unchanged.