A review of conflict of interest, competing interest, and bias for toxicologists

Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study

To rapidly respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis, researchers have been called upon to prioritize pandemic research, while simultaneously modifying their existing research to maintain the safety of all stakeholders. This study aims to explore the experiences of health science researchers in their scientific practices, research priorities, and professional relational dynamics due to COVID-19. Specifically, we interviewed 31 researchers from diverse fields at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Participants worked on COVID-19, non-COVID-19 related research, or both. We integrated inductive and deductive coding using a thematic coding method. The following four themes were explored: 1) impact of research, 2) research priorities, 3) professional relationships and 4) contextual influences on science. Participants were drawn to COVID-19 work for a diversity of reasons including social need, scientific interest, professional duty, and increased access to funding opportunities. While collaborations have increased for COVID-19 researchers, interpersonal relationships have been challenging for participants. Additionally, political, familial, and personal stresses due to the pandemic have taken a toll on researchers in very different and often inequitable ways. To ensure team cohesion, there is a need to develop research practices, policies and systems that value empathy, flexibility, and interdependence.

A systematic literature review to identify ethical, legal, and social responsibilities of nonprofit organizations when funding clinical trials in pediatric cancer

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) play critical roles as funding sources, research partners, and disseminators of drug developments in pediatric cancer. Yet the literature provides limited guidance about ethical best practices when NPOs make trial funding decisions in this space. We conducted a systematic review of the literature indexed in PubMed and Web of Science to identify the ethical, legal, and social responsibilities of NPOs to four key stakeholder groups in funding pediatric cancer trials: (i) patients/families, (ii) researchers, (iii) industry sponsors, and (iv) donors. We applied the lifecycle framework for patient engagement in drug research and development proposed by Geissler and colleagues to analyze themes related to NPOs' responsibilities across 54 articles that met our inclusion criteria. Emergent themes included transparency surrounding conflicts of interest, the rigor of scientific review, and communication with patients/communities about trial progress. Our research identified critical gaps in best practices for negotiating research partnerships, managing competing research priorities, and pursuing alternative financing models including venture philanthropy. Results from our review informed a set of best practices to guide NPOs in making trial funding decisions that align with stakeholder values and interests.

Development of a Methodological Quality Criteria List for Observational Studies: The Observational Study Quality Evaluation

Background: Existing study quality and risk of bias lists for observational studies have important disadvantages. For this reason, a comprehensive widely applicable quality assessment tool for observational studies was developed. Methods: Criteria from three quality lists were merged into a new quality assessment tool: the observational study quality evaluation (OSQE). OSQE consists of a cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional version. Results: The OSQE cohort, the OSQE case-control, and the OSQE cross-sectional version include all items applicable to that type of study, for example, the representativeness of the study population, the validity of the independent and dependent variables, and the statistical methods used. Before scoring the OSQE, the rater is asked to define how to score items, in detail. A study can obtain a star for each item. Each item also has a veto cell. This cell can be checked when poor quality with respect to that specific item results in a low quality of the study despite stars on other items. Although stars add to a sum score, the comment field is the most important part of the OSQE. Conclusion: The OSQE presented in the current article provides a short, comprehensive, and widely applicable list to assess study quality and therewith risk of bias.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze conflict of interest (COI) and funding disclosure policies of 224 journals listed in Journal Citation Reports as focusing on environmental, occupational, or public health research.

METHODS

A survey of journal policies and content analysis.

RESULTS

About 96.0% of the policies required COI disclosure, 92.4% required funding disclosure, 75.9% defined COIs, 69.6% provided examples of COIs, 68.8% addressed nonfinancial COIs, 33.9% applied to editors and reviewers, 32.1% required discussion of the role of the funding source, and 1.8% included enforcement mechanisms. Policies were significantly associated with journal impact factor and publisher.

CONCLUSION

Although a high percentage of journals in our sample have COI policies that provide substantial guidance to authors, there is a room for improvement. Journals that have not done so should consider developing enforcement mechanisms and applying COI policies to editors and reviewers.

Influence of author's affiliation and funding sources on the results of cohort studies on occupational cancer

BACKGROUND

Reliability and credibility of research conducted by industry have been questioned, including in the field of occupational health.

METHODS

Cohort studies on occupational cancer published between 2000 and 2010 were compared according to their results, their conclusions, their funding, and the affiliation of their authors.

RESULTS

Overall, 510 articles were included. Studies published by authors with public affiliation or funded by public grants concluded that their study showed an excess of cancer more frequently (P = 0.01) than studies published by authors with private affiliation or funded by private grants (88% [95%CI = 85-91] vs. 73% [95%CI = 56-88] and 92% [95%CI = 86-97] vs. 71% [95%CI = 57-84], respectively). Discrepancies between statistical results and conclusion occurred more frequently in articles written by authors from the private sector than from the public sector (42% [IC95% = 26-60] vs. 23% [IC95% = 18-26], P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Industry affiliations of authors or industry support of studies are associated with the results of published studies on occupational cancer. The underlying mechanisms warrant further investigation.

Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community

A survey on credit issues and related "responsible conduct of research" (RCR) behaviors was conducted with academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the U.S. Six hundred faculty members responded. Fifty percent of the respondents reported not receiving appropriate credit for contributions they had made to projects the results of which had been published, including when they themselves were students. Thirty percent of these individuals discussed this lack of credit with the "offending" individual, and as a consequence of those discussions, a small percentage of individuals were provided either co-authorship or an acknowledgment. The majority who did not enter into a discussion with the "offending" individual reported two primary reasons for not doing so: that they "could not imagine any good coming from such a conversation" and "I was afraid of being in a compromised situation." A discussion of relationship asymmetry in the academic setting is provided. Confronting one's colleague regarding credit is compared with whistleblowing, and the possible consequences of blacklisting are discussed. A number of recommendations for minimizing authorship disputes are provided.

Evaluation criteria for publishing in top-tier journals in environmental health sciences and toxicology

BACKGROUND

Trying to publish a paper in a top-rated peer-reviewed journal can be a difficult and frustrating experience for authors. It is important that authors understand the general review process before submitting manuscripts for publication.

OBJECTIVES

Editors-in-chief and associate editors from top-tier journals such as Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), Toxicological Sciences, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, and Chemical Research in Toxicology were asked to provide guidance concerning the writing and submission of papers to their journals.

DISCUSSION

The editors reviewed the manuscript review process for their journals, elaborated on the evaluation criteria for reviewing papers, and provided advice for future authors in preparing their papers.

CONCLUSIONS

The manuscript submission process was similar for all of the journals with the exception of EHP that includes an initial screening in which about two-thirds of submitted papers are returned to the authors without review. The evaluation criteria used by the journals were also similar. Papers that are relevant to the scope of the journal, are innovative, significantly advance the field, are well written, and adhere to the instructions to authors have a higher likelihood of being accepted. The editors advised potential authors to ensure that the topic of the paper is within the scope of the journal, represents an important problem, is carefully prepared according to the instructions to authors, and to seek editorial assistance if English is not the primary language of the authors.