Conflicts of interest and AJRCCM: restating policy and a new form to upload

Can We Trust Positive Findings of Intervention Research? The Role of Conflict of Interest

In recent years, there has been increased attention to the issue of conflict of interest within prevention research. The aims of this paper are to discuss these developments and to relate them to discussions of conflict of interest in the broader scientific literature. Although there has been concern expressed about the extent to which conflicts of interest can be defined and measured, empirical research suggests that financial conflicts can be easily identified and assessed in meta-analyses focused on their effects on research quality. Research evidence also shows that conflict of interest is associated with use of flexible data analysis practices and the reporting of chance positive findings, both within prevention research and related disciplines such as public health and psychology. However, the overwhelming majority of published studies report positive results, and there are a number of other influences within academia (such as pressure to publish) that account for this and for the use of flexible data analysis practices. Accordingly, introducing measures to improve research quality in general, rather than just focusing on problems specific to research in which there is a clearly identifiable conflict of interest, may prove more effective and less controversial. Most such efforts focus on introducing greater transparency into research design, practice, and reporting. These both curtail employment of flexible data analysis practices and make their use transparent to investigators seeking to assess their effects on research quality. Also, requiring detailed disclosures of conflicts be reported by all investigators (not just senior authors) would improve current disclosure practices.

Seymour Sarason Remembered: "Plus ça change…", "Psychology Misdirected", and "Community Psychology and the Anarchist Insight"

The intellectual legacy of Seymour Sarason continues to serve as a critical resource for the field of community psychology. The present paper draws on one of Sarason's favorite aphorisms and two of his seminal writings to suggest the relevance of ideas articulated 35-40 years ago for the current time. Each in their own way highlights the importance of unearthing and interrogating core assumptions underlying our research and our efforts to make a positive difference. The aphorism reminds us that the rhetoric of change is far easier to articulate than to enact and all too often ignores or disguises issues of power among actors. The "misdirection" of Psychology reflected his assertion that the asocial, acultural, and ahistorical nature of American Psychology reflected American culture more generally and ill prepared it to understand and engage in social change, particularly with respect to educational reform. The "anarchist insight" articulated his belief in interrogating the implications of the increasingly interdependent relationship of science and the state for the autonomy of scientists and scientific inquiry. The evidence-based practice movement is offered as an example of the current day relevance of the aphorism and core insights of these two papers. The paper concludes with a plea to rekindle the discussion and continued examination of Sarason's paradigmatic insights for the intellectual and social development of the field.

Conflict of interest in the evaluation and dissemination of "model" school-based drug and violence prevention programs

Conflict of interest refers to a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning the validity of research might be influenced by a secondary competing interest. The competing interest that has received most attention in the literature addressing the prevalence and effects of such conflicts on the practice of empirical research has been that of financial relationships between investigators and research sponsors. The potential for conflicts of interest to arise in the evaluation of drug prevention programs was raised by Moskowitz in this journal in 1993, but to date there has been no attempt made to estimate the scope of this problem. The present study addressed this issue using a sample of "model" school-based drug and violence prevention interventions by first, identifying the types or relationships that exist between program developers and program distributors, and, second, by assessing how many of the evaluations of these programs published in peer-reviewed journals had been conducted by the developers of the programs compared to independent evaluation teams. The data presented indicate that there are relatively few published evaluations that do not involve program developers and that there are few instances in which there is complete separation between the program developer and program distributor. Using the open systems model of the Institute of Medicine Committee on Research Integrity as a framework, it is argued that the culture and norms of the program developer and those of the program evaluator are fundamentally distinct and therefore failure to separate these roles produces high potential for conflict of interest to arise.

Scientific peer review to inform regulatory decision making: leadership responsibilities and cautions

The article offers insights on the peer-review process as it relates to scientific and technical reports used to inform regulatory decisions. Used effectively, peer review is a powerful tool for advising organizational leaders whether the scientific foundations of their decisions can be expected to withstand scrutiny as rule-making products move through interagency reviews, public comment and stakeholder processes, congressional oversight, and judicial review. The emphasis is "heads up" rather than "how to." That is, without delving into myriad technical and administrative details, the discussion highlights nine fundamental "leadership responsibilities" that determine the nature and course of peer review.