Public health journals' requirements for authors to disclose funding and conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional study

Key actors in behavioral health services availability and accessibility research: a scoping review bibliometric analysis

This bibliometric review aims to identify key actors in the behavioral health services availability/accessibility literature. Coalescing information about these actors could support subsequent research efforts to improve the availability and accessibility of behavioral health services. The authors used a scoping review method and a bibliometric approach. The articles came from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Articles were included if they assessed behavioral health service availability or accessibility quantitatively and were written in English. The final sample included 265 articles. Bibliometric data were extracted, coded, and verified. The authors analyzed the data using univariate and social network analyses. Publishing in this area has become more consistent and has grown since 2002. Psychiatric Services and Graduate Theses were the most frequently used publication venues. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, and the Veterans Administration funded the most research. The most frequently used keyword was "health services accessibility." The findings suggest that this literature is growing. There are a few clusters of researchers in this area. Government organizations primarily fund this research. The paper and supplementary materials list the top researchers, publication venues, funding sources, and key terms to promote further behavioral health availability/accessibility research.

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.

Reporting of funding and conflicts of interest improved from preprints to peer-reviewed publications of biomedical research

OBJECTIVES

To assess changes in the reporting of funding and conflicts of interest (COI) in biomedical research between preprint server publications and their corresponding versions in peer-reviewed journals.

STUDY DESIGN

We selected preprint servers publishing exclusively biomedical research. From these, we screened articles by order of publication date and identified 200 preprints first published in 2020 with subsequent versions in peer-reviewed journals. We judged eligibility and extracted data about authorship, funding, and COI in duplicate and independently. We performed descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A quarter of the studies added at least one author to the peer-reviewed version. Most studies reported funding in both versions (87%), and a quarter of these added at least one funder to the peer-reviewed version. Eighteen studies (9%) reported funding only in the peer-reviewed version. A majority of studies reported COI in both versions (69%) and 5% of these had authors reporting more COI in the peer-reviewed version. A minority of studies (23%) reported COI only in the peer-reviewed version. None of the studies justified any changes in authorship, funding, or COI.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of funding and COI improved in peer-reviewed versions. However, substantive percentages of studies added authors, funders, and COI disclosures in their peer-reviewed versions.

A framework is proposed for defining, categorizing, and assessing conflicts of interest in health research

OBJECTIVE

We propose an operational definition of conflicts of interest (COI), a framework for categorizing interests, and an approach to assessing whether an interest qualifies as a COI.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed the literature and conducted methodological studies to inform the development of a draft framework for classifying interests.

RESULTS

We developed the following operational definition: "a conflict of interest exists when a past, current, or expected interest creates a significant risk of inappropriately influencing an individual's judgment, decision, or action when carrying out a specific duty". Interest refers to a benefit (e.g., money received from industry) or to an attribute of the individual (e.g., having specific religious beliefs). The proposed framework includes seven types of interests relating to individuals (direct financial benefit, benefit through professional status, intellectual, and personal) or their institution (direct financial benefit to the institution, benefit through increasing services provided by the institution, and nonfinancial). When assessing whether an interest qualifies as a COI, one could consider its relevance, nature (e.g., cash vs. educational support), magnitude, and recency.

CONCLUSION

The proposed operational definition and categorization framework may help journals, guideline organizations, professional societies, and healthcare institutions enhance transparency in health research.

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.

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.

The Policies for the Disclosure of Funding and Conflict of Interest in Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Industry through its funding of research and through its relationships with study authors can influence the results of research. Most journals have policies for reporting funding and disclosing conflict of interest (COI) to mitigate the influence of industry on research. The objective of this study is to assess the policies of surgery journals for the reporting of funding and the disclosure of COI.

METHODS

We described the prevalence and characteristics of funding and COI policies of journals indexed under "Surgery" in the Journal Citation Reports. We extracted data from publicly available information and through simulation of manuscript submission.

RESULTS

Of the 186 eligible journals, 171 (92%) had policies for reporting of funding. None of the policies described procedures to deal with non-reporting or underreporting of funding. Of the 186 journals, 183 (99%) had a policy for disclosure of COI. All journals with a COI policy required disclosure of financial interest, while 96 (52%) required the disclosure of non-financial interests. Only 24 (13%) policies described how non-disclosure of COI affects the editorial process, and none described procedures to verify COI disclosure. Of the policies that required disclosing COI, 94 (51%) also required reporting the source of financial COI.

CONCLUSIONS

Most journals have policies for reporting of funding and disclosure of financial COI. However, many do not have clear policies for disclosing non-financial COI. Major limitations in the policies include the lack of processes for the verification of disclosed interests and for dealing with underreporting of funding and of COI.

The reporting of funding in health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Major research-reporting statements, such as PRISMA and CONSORT, require authors to provide information about funding. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the reporting of funding in health policy and systems research (HPSR) papers and (2) to assess the funding reporting policies of journals publishing on HPSR.

METHODS

We conducted two cross-sectional surveys for papers published in 2016 addressing HPSR (both primary studies and systematic reviews) and for journals publishing on HPSR (both journals under the 'Health Policy and Services' (HPS) category in the Web of Science, and non-HPS journals that published on HPSR). Teams of two reviewers selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to investigate the association between reporting of funding by papers and the journal's characteristics.

RESULTS

We included 400 studies (200 systematic reviews and 200 primary studies) that were published in 198 journals. Approximately one-third (31%) of HPSR papers did not report on funding. Of those that did, only 11% reported on the role of funders (15% of systematic reviews and 7% of primary studies). Of the 198 journals publishing on HPSR, 89% required reporting of the source of funding. Of those that did, about one-third (34%) required reporting of the role of funders. Journals classified under the HPS category (n = 72) were less likely than non-HPS journals that published HPSR studies (n = 142) to require information on the role of funders (15% vs. 32%). We did not find any of the journals' characteristics to be associated with the reporting of funding by papers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the majority of journals publishing on HPSR requiring the reporting of funding, approximately one-third of HPSR papers did not report on the funding source. Moreover, few journals publishing on HPSR required the reporting of the role of funders, and few HPSR papers reported on that role.