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

Health Care Industry Payments to Editorial Board Members of Major Neurosurgery Journals Between 2017 and 2022

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Financial conflicts of interest between editorial board members and industry could lead to biases and impartial editorial decisions. We aimed to evaluate the frequency, amount, and characteristics of payments to editorial board members of neurosurgery journals over a 6-year period.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, editorial board members were derived from the top 10 neurosurgery journals based on Google Scholar metrics. The Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was accessed to evaluate industry payments to editorial board members from 2017to 2022. Descriptive analyses were performed on payment data, adjusted for inflation using the consumer price indices.

RESULTS

We included 805 editorial board members. After excluding duplicate names, 342 (53.9%) of 634 had received payments between 2017 and 2022. Eight of 10 journals had more than 50% of editorial board members listed in the Open Payments database. Between 2017 and 2022, the total number of payments to editorial board members was $143 732 057, encompassing $1 323 936 in research payments, $69 122 067 in associated research funding, $5 380 926 in ownership and investment interests, and $67 905 128 in general payments. General payments decreased from $13 676 382 in 2017 to $8 528 003 in 2022. Royalties ($43 393 697) and consulting ($13 157 934) contributed the most to general payments between 2017 and 2022. Four journals had a percentage increase in total payments, whereas general payments decreased for 6 journals.

CONCLUSION

Around 54% of editorial board members of neurosurgical journals received industry payments between 2017 and 2022. We identified journal-specific trends in industry payments and highlighted the importance of transparency and disclosure of financial conflicts of interests for neurosurgery journals.

Evaluating industry payments to editorial board members of otolaryngology journals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the extent of payments from medical device and pharmaceutical companies to editorial board members of leading otolaryngology journals.

METHODS

Editorial board members of the top 10 otolaryngology journals from Google Scholar rankings were identified in this cross-sectional study. Payments between 2017 and 2022 were identified via the Open Payments Database from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All payment data was adjusted for inflation in 2022 US dollars. Descriptive analyses were performed and journal websites were evaluated for individual editor disclosures.

RESULTS

Out of 581 board members, 306 (53 %) received industry payments between 2017 and 2022, median journal percentage 55 % (interquartile range: 26.5 %-73.5 %). A sum of $45.8 million was paid out between 2017 and 2022, comprising $32.0 million in associated research funding, $1.2 million in research payments, $1.4 million in ownership and investment interests, and $11.2 million in general payments. The largest general payments were made out for "services other than consulting and speaking" ($3.9 million), "consulting" ($3.8 million), "travel and lodging" ($0.99 million), "education" ($0.87 million), "royalty or license" ($0.56 million), and "food and beverage" ($0.55 million). Individual editor disclosures were only available for International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (9 % of all included editors).

CONCLUSIONS

Industry payments to editors of otolaryngology journals are not uncommon. We highlight the need for improved reporting of individual editor disclosures for transparency to journal readers and for minimizing biased editorial decisions.

Trend Analysis of Industry-Sponsored Research Funding and Research Productivity in Orthopaedic Surgery Using the Open Payments Database

Introduction Orthopedic surgery and industry work together in order to provide optimal patient care. The Open Payments Database (OPD), established in 2013, reports industry payments to physicians. This study analyzes the first five years of industry-sponsored research funding (ISRF) to orthopedic surgeons and examines research productivity's effect on ISRF. Methods The OPD was queried from 2014 to 2018 for research payments to orthopedic surgeons in the United States. H-indices and publication volume were queried using the Scopus database. The research payments were sub-categorized to surgeons in teaching hospitals, registered clinical trials, preclinical research, and domestic. Results Between 2014 and 2018, a total of $202.74 million in ISRF was made to 1718 orthopedic surgeons. The proportion of research payments associated with a registered clinical trial significantly increased from 9.62% of payments in 2014 to 42.19% of payments in 2018 (p=0.002). Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. ($20.77 million) contributed the largest value of payments to the greatest number of orthopedic surgeons (n=337). The total value of research payments increased by $3855 for every five-unit increase of a surgeon's H-index (p<0.001) and $762 for every five additional publications (p<0.001). Conclusion Orthopedic surgeons affiliated with a teaching hospital or clinical trial receive more ISRF. There may be a relationship between research productivity and ISRF.

Conflict of interest in the peer review process: A survey of peer review reports

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors address study funding and authors' conflicts of interests (COI). Also, we aimed to assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors reported and commented on their own or each other's COI.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic survey of original studies published in open access peer reviewed journals that publish their peer review reports. Using REDCap, we collected data in duplicate and independently from journals' websites and articles' peer review reports.

RESULTS

We included a sample of original studies (N = 144) and a second one of randomized clinical trials (N = 115) RCTs. In both samples, and for the majority of studies, reviewers reported absence of COI (70% and 66%), while substantive percentages of reviewers did not report on COI (28% and 30%) and only small percentages reported any COI (2% and 4%). For both samples, none of the editors whose names were publicly posted reported on COI. The percentages of peer reviewers commenting on the study funding, authors' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 2% in either one of the two samples. 25% and 7% of editors respectively in the two samples commented on study funding, while none commented on authors' COI, peer reviewers' COI, or their own COI. The percentages of authors commenting in their response letters on the study funding, peer reviewers' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 3% in either one of the two samples.

CONCLUSION

The percentages of peer reviewers and journals editors who addressed study funding and authors' COI and were extremely low. In addition, peer reviewers and journal editors rarely reported their own COI, or commented on their own or on each other's COI.

Feasibility of an Audit and Feedback Intervention to Facilitate Journal Policy Change Towards Greater Promotion of Transparency and Openness in Sports Science Research

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate (1) the feasibility of an audit-feedback intervention to facilitate sports science journal policy change, (2) the reliability of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) policy evaluation form, and (3) the extent to which policies of sports science journals support transparent and open research practices.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, audit-feedback, feasibility study of transparency and openness standards of the top 38 sports science journals by impact factor. The TRUST form was used to evaluate journal policies support for transparent and open research practices. Feedback was provided to journal editors in the format of a tailored letter. Inter-rater reliability and agreement of the TRUST form was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and the standard error of measurement, respectively. Time-based criteria, fidelity of intervention delivery and qualitative feedback were used to determine feasibility.

RESULTS

The audit-feedback intervention was feasible based on the time taken to rate journals and provide tailored feedback. The mean (SD) score on the TRUST form (range 0-27) was 2.05 (1.99), reflecting low engagement with transparent and open practices. Inter-rater reliability of the overall score of the TRUST form was moderate [ICC (2,1) = 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.79)], with standard error of measurement of 1.17. However, some individual items had poor reliability.

CONCLUSION

Policies of the top 38 sports science journals have potential for improved support for transparent and open research practices. The feasible audit-feedback intervention developed here warrants large-scale evaluation as a means to facilitate change in journal policies.

REGISTRATION

OSF ( https://osf.io/d2t4s/ ).

Industry Payments Among Editorial Board Members of Orthopaedic Journals: An Open Payments Analysis From 2014 to 2019

INTRODUCTION

Although industry payments to physicians and surgeons remain a subject of controversy, relationships between industry and orthopaedic surgeons continue to grow. Notably, recent analyses have demonstrated significant increases in the rate and magnitude of payments among orthopaedic surgeons, despite the passing of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. Given the concerns regarding how these relationships may affect the peer-review process, our analysis aimed to evaluate how payments among editorial board members of orthopaedic journals have changed over a contemporary time frame.

METHODS

The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor tool was used to identify all orthopaedic journals with a 2019 impact factor of ≥1.5. Editorial board members from these respective journals were identified from each journal's website. Subsequently, the Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was queried to identify industry payments received by these board members between 2014 and 2019. The quantity and magnitude of payments were then evaluated and compared over this study period. All monetary values were adjusted for inflation.

RESULTS

A total of 18 orthopaedic journals were included in our analysis. Of the 1,519 editorial board members identified, 711 (46.81%) received some form of industry payment in 2019. The total, average, and median payments over this study period decreased for 6 (31.6%), 7 (36.8%), and 8 of the included journals (44.44%), respectively. Six hundred twenty board members had higher average payments in 2019 than in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrated high rates of industry payments among editorial board members of high-impact orthopaedic journals. In addition, we demonstrated marked growth in the total, average, and median magnitude of these payments since the inception of the Open Payments database. Our findings encourage a continued need for transparency in related payments to ensure a fair and unbiased peer-review process, one that is separated from undue industry influence.

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.

Health Care Industry Payments to Editorial Board Members of Imaging-related Journals

Background Editorial board members may be biased due to conflicts of interest (COIs). Purpose To investigate the frequency and amount of payments from industry to editorial board members of imaging-related journals and whether they are in agreement with the disclosure status as provided by the journal. Materials and Methods Editorial board members of 15 U.S.-based imaging-related journals who were listed in the Open Payments database (OPD) were included. Payments from industry to editorial board members in the year 2020 were extracted from the OPD and compared with publicly available COI disclosure data as provided by the journals. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 519 editorial board members were included, of whom 214 (41%) received industry payment and 305 (59%) did not. Payments to editorial board members by the industry ranged from $12.63 to $404 625.47 (median, $2397.48). Most payments from industry (59%) were ascribed to consulting. Editorial board members of the journals JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging and Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology received significantly higher amounts of individual payments from industry than editorial board members of most other journals. Financial COI disclosures were not publicly listed for 413 of the 519 (80%) editorial board members, 169 of whom received payments from industry according to the OPD. Of the 106 editorial board members whose financial COI disclosures were publicly listed, 36 (34%) were discordant with the OPD. Conclusion Payments from industry to Open Payments database-listed editorial board members of imaging-related journals are prevalent. Imaging-related journals often do not report or do not accurately report payments from industry to their editorial board members © RSNA, 2022.

Are highly ranked dental journals at risk of editorial bias? An examination of information on the reporting of peer-review practices

The objective of the present study was to assess how clearly and transparently reported are the editorial policies of highly ranked dental journals regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts. A total of 92 dental journals classified by impact factor had their websites scrutinized between 22 July and 06 September 2021 for all information on their policies regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts by editors. The information included items that could indicate potential risk of editorial bias. A total of 49 (53.3%) of the selected journals allowed the submission of all types of manuscripts, while 26 (28.3%) journals did not allow some types of manuscripts to be submitted (some manuscripts are only commissioned). The criteria for the acceptance of submitted manuscripts were clearly reported in eight (8.7%) journals, and only one reported the criteria in a hierarchical fashion. Sixteen (17.4%) journals reported a policy for handling the submitted manuscript when an editor was the author of the manuscript. Nine (9.8%) journals reported the possibility of a rebuttal letter by authors after manuscript rejection, but for most (62%) journals this information was not reported.The reporting of editorial policies regarding the peer-review process in highly ranked dental journals should be improved.

Withholding conflicts of interest: the many flaws of the new ICMJE disclosure form

In this article, I describe and analyse the proposed new International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosing conflicts of interest and conclude that it has many flaws. The form does not mention 'conflicts of interest' even once in either its body or its title, it introduces a conceptually confused categorisation of different potential conflicts and it ignores future conflicts and intellectual biases. Finally, many of the authors of the new form have themselves failed to declare relevant potential conflicts of interest.

Watching the watchers: A report on the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by editors and editorial board members of dental journals

Reporting potential conflicts of interest (COIs) by all parties involved in the publication process is of pivotal importance to increase trust in research. The present study assessed the disclosure of potential COIs of editors and editorial board members of high-ranked dental journals. From 28 April 2021 to 05 May 2021, the websites of 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) were scrutinized to obtain information on the reporting of COI forms of editors and board members, and whether these individuals reported their detailed curriculum vitae (CV). The COI forms were assessed to understand the potential financial and non-financial COIs of editors and board members. Only 11 (12.1%) journals reported COI forms of editors-in-chief (EICs) and associate editors (AEs). No journal reported a COI form of the editorial board members. Of the 100 editors (EICs plus AEs), 25 (25.%) declared connections to for-profit organisations, and seven (7%) to not-for-profit organisations. Five (5%) editors (all AEs) reported non-financial COIs, and 35 (35%) editors reported nothing to declare. Nine (9.9%) journals reported a short CV of editors, which were not informative regarding potential COIs. Editors and editorial board members of high-ranked dental journals should report in more detail their potential COIs.

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

Scientific progress requires transparency and openness. The ability to critique, replicate and implement scientific findings depends on the transparency of the study design and methods, and the open availability of study materials, data and code. Journals are key stakeholders in supporting transparency and openness. This study aimed to evaluate 10 highest ranked pain journals' authorship policies with respect to their support for transparent and open research practices. Two independent authors evaluated the journal policies (as at 27 May 2019) using three tools: the self-developed Transparency and Openness Evaluation Tool, the Centre for Open Science (COS) Transparency Factor and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest. We found that the journal policies had an overall low level of engagement with research transparency and openness standards. The median COS Transparency Factor score was 3.5 (IQR 2.8) of 29 possible points, and only 7 of 10 journals' stated requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest aligned fully with the ICMJE recommendations. Improved transparency and openness of pain research has the potential to benefit all that are involved in generating and using research findings. Journal policies that endorse and facilitate transparent and open research practices will ultimately improve the evidence base that informs the care provided for people with pain.

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Authors' conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors' conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews' disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements.

RESULTS

Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group.

DISCUSSION

The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses.

CONCLUSION

Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.

Do Author Conflicts of Interest and Industry Sponsorship Influence Outcomes of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding Glaucoma Interventions? A Cross-sectional Analysis

PRCIS

In our sample of systematic reviews focusing on treatments for glaucoma, reviews conducted by authors with a conflict of interest were more likely to reach favorable conclusions compared with reviews without conflicted authors.

PURPOSE

Previous studies have demonstrated that authors' conflict of interest can influence outcomes of systematic reviews. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether the presence of 1 of more conflicts was associated with more favorable results and conclusions in systematic reviews of glaucoma interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews of glaucoma treatments published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. Author conflicts of interest were located using multiple databases (eg, CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO) and previously published disclosure statements. Study sponsorship was determined using each review's funding disclosure statement.

RESULTS

Our study included 26 systematic reviews conducted by 108 authors. Of these reviews, 9 (35%) were conducted by at least 1 author with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Of those 9, 3 (33%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 5 (56%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 17 systematic reviews with no conflicted authors, 1 (6%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 2 (12%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. The Fisher exact tests demonstrated that these differences held a statistically significant association between author conflicts and the favorability of the reviews' conclusions toward the treatment group (P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that systematic reviews conducted by 1 or more authors with conflicts of interest were more likely than those with no conflicted authors to draw favorable conclusions about the investigated intervention.

Editor and peer reviewer financial conflict of interest policies in public health journals

The influence of harmful commodity industries on health research has heightened concerns around author financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) in public health journals (PHJs), with little discussion of potential editorial, i.e., editor and reviewer, FCOIs. In this analysis of 20 prominent PHJs, detailed disclosure requirements, the inclusion of timeframes, and policy accessibility were found lacking in editorial, compared with author, FCOI policies. Disclosure forms were employed in 32% of PHJs for authors but not for editors or reviewers. Recusal policies were similar for reviewers (68%) and editors (60%). Strengthening editorial FCOI policies will increase the integrity of PHJs' editorial processes.

Nursing Journal Policies on Disclosure and Management of Conflicts of Interest

PURPOSE

Concerns about conflicts of interest (COIs) in research and health care are well known, but recent reports of authors failing to disclose potential COIs in journal articles threatens the integrity of the scholarly literature. While many nursing journals have published editorials on this topic, review of nursing journal policies on and experiences with COIs has not been reported. The purposes of this study were to examine the extent to which nursing journals have COI policies and require disclosures by authors, peer reviewers, editorial board members, and editors who have a role in journal content decisions.

DESIGN

This cohort study addressed top-ranked nursing journal policies about and experiences with COIs in scholarly publications.

METHODS

An analysis of COI policies in the instructions for authors of 118 journals listed in the nursing category of Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports was completed in 2019. An electronic survey of the editors was also conducted to determine their awareness and experience with COI policies for their journals. Characteristics of the journals and policies were assessed. Information on polices about COIs for editors and peer reviewers were also reviewed. A content analysis of the policies included assessment of best practices and gaps in requirements.

FINDINGS

For the journal policy assessment, 116 journals that publish only in the English language were eligible. The majority (n = 113; 97.4%) of journals had a statement on COI policies for authors, but only 42 (36.2%) had statements for peer reviewers and only 37 (31.9%) had statements for editors. A total of 117 journal editors were sent the survey. One declined to participate, leaving a total of 116 eligible editors; 82 (70.6%) responded and 34 did not respond. Sixty-seven (81.7%) of the 82 editors indicated that their journal had a policy about COIs for authors. Seventy-four editors (63.7%) responded to the question about their journal having a policy about COIs for peer reviewers and editors. Thirty-three (44.5%) of the respondents indicated their journal had a COI policy for peer reviewers, and 29 (39.1%) stated they had a policy for editors. Few editors (n = 7; 9%) indicated that they had encountered problems pertaining to author COIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study may help promote ethical publication practices through comprehensive policies on disclosure and management of nursing journal authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Declarations of potential conflicts of interest promote transparency and allows the consumer of research to take that into consideration when considering the findings of a study.

The limitations to our understanding of peer review

Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core themes including editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers, the function and quality of peer review, and the social and epistemic implications of peer review. The high-priority gaps are focused around increased accountability and justification in decision-making processes for editors and developing a deeper, empirical understanding of the social impact of peer review. Addressing this at the bare minimum will require the design of a consensus for a minimal set of standards for what constitutes peer review, and the development of a shared data infrastructure to support this. Such a field requires sustained funding and commitment from publishers and research funders, who both have a commitment to uphold the integrity of the published scholarly record. We use this to present a guide for the future of peer review, and the development of a new research discipline based on the study of peer review.