Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Drazen JM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2764746 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals.
Drazen Jeffrey M JM Van Der Weyden Martin B MB Sahni Peush P Rosenberg Jacob J Marusic Ana A Laine Christine C Kotzin Sheldon S Horton Richard R Hébert Paul C PC Haug Charlotte C Godlee Fiona F Frizelle Frank A FA de Leeuw Peter W PW DeAngelis Catherine D CD
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20091013 9
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC35347 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1124846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) data-sharing policy which came into force on 1 July 2018 by ICMJE-member journals and by ICMJE-affiliated journals declaring they follow the ICMJE recommendations.DesignA cross-sectional survey of data-sharing policies in 2018 on journal websites and in data-sharing statements in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).SettingICMJE website; PubMed/Medline.Eligibility criteriaICMJE-member journals and 489 ICMJE-affiliated journals that published an RCT in 2018, had an accessible online website and were not considered as predatory journals according to Beall's list. One hundred RCTs for member journals and 100 RCTs for affiliated journals with a data-sharing policy, submitted after 1 July 2018.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome for the policies was the existence of a data-sharing policy (explicit data-sharing policy, no data-sharing policy, policy merely referring to ICMJE recommendations) as reported on the journal website, especially in the instructions for authors. For RCTs, our primary outcome was the intention to share individual participant data set out in the data-sharing statement.ResultsEight (out of 14; 57%) member journals had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (three were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, one was less demanding and four were compliant), five (35%) additional journals stated that they followed the ICMJE requirements, and one (8%) had no policy online. In RCTs published in these journals, there were data-sharing statements in 98 out of 100, with expressed intention to share individual patient data reaching 77 out of 100 (77%; 95% CI 67% to 85%). One hundred and forty-five (out of 489) ICMJE-affiliated journals (30%; 26% to 34%) had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (11 were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, 85 were less demanding and 49 were compliant) and 276 (56%; 52% to 61%) merely referred to the ICMJE requirements. In RCTs published in affiliated journals with an explicit data-sharing policy, data-sharing statements were rare (25%), and expressed intentions to share data were found in 22% (15% to 32%).ConclusionThe implementation of ICMJE data-sharing requirements in online journal policies was suboptimal for ICMJE-member journals and poor for ICMJE-affiliated journals. The implementation of the policy was good in member journals and of concern for affiliated journals. We suggest the conduct of continuous audits of medical journal data-sharing policies in the future.RegistrationThe protocol was registered before the start of the research on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/n6whd/).
| S-EPMC7264700 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1069676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Digital health is increasingly promoting open health data. Although this open approach promises a number of benefits, it also leads to tensions with Indigenous data sovereignty movements led by Indigenous peoples around the world who are asserting control over the use of health data as a part of self-determination. Digital health has a role in improving access to services and delivering improved health outcomes for Indigenous communities. However, we argue that in order to be effective and ethical, it is essential that the field engages more with Indigenous peoples´ rights and interests. We discuss challenges and possible improvements for data acquisition, management, analysis, and integration as they pertain to the health of Indigenous communities around the world.
| S-EPMC11224364 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These provide a global standard for writing and editing medical articles, including research integrity. However, no study has examined the research integrity-related content of Japanese medical journals' Instructions for Authors. We therefore compared research integrity content in ICMJE member journals with those in the English- and Japanese-language journals of the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS).Materials and methodsThis was a descriptive literature study. We obtained Instructions for Authors from English- and Japanese-language journals listed on the JAMS website and the ICMJE member journals listed on the ICMJE website as of September 1, 2021. We compared the presence of 20 topics (19 in the ICMJE Recommendations plus compliance with ICMJE) in the Instructions for Authors, and analyzed the content of the conflict of interest disclosure.ResultsWe evaluated 12 ICMJE member journals, and 82 English-language and 99 Japanese-language subcommittee journals. The median number of topics covered was 10.5 for ICMJE member journals, 10 for English-language journals, and three for Japanese-language journals. Compliance with ICMJE was mentioned by 10 (83%) ICMJE member journals, 75 (91%) English-language journals, and 29 (29%) Japanese-language journals. The ICMJE Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form was requested by seven (64%) ICMJE member journals, 15 (18%) English-language journals, and one (1%) Japanese-language journal.ConclusionsAlthough the topics in the JAMS English-language journals resembled those in the ICMJE member journals, the median value of ICMJE-related topic inclusion was approximately one-third lower in JAMS Japanese-language journals than in ICMJE member journals. It is hoped that Japanese-language journals whose conflict of interest disclosure policies differ from ICMJE standards will adopt international standards to deter misconduct and ensure publication quality.
| S-EPMC11251596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:We assessed the adequacy of randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration, changes to registration data and reporting completeness for articles in ICMJE journals during 2.5 years after registration requirement policy. METHODS:For a set of 149 reports of 152 RCTs with ClinicalTrials.gov registration number, published from September 2005 to April 2008, we evaluated the completeness of 9 items from WHO 20-item Minimum Data Set relevant for assessing trial quality. We also assessed changes to the registration elements at the Archive site of ClinicalTrials.gov and compared published and registry data. RESULTS:RCTs were mostly registered before 13 September 2005 deadline (n?=?101, 66.4%); 118 (77.6%) started recruitment before and 31 (20.4%) after registration. At the time of registration, 152 RCTs had a total of 224 missing registry fields, most commonly 'Key secondary outcomes' (44.1% RCTs) and 'Primary outcome' (38.8%). More RCTs with post-registration recruitment had missing Minimum Data Set items than RCTs with pre-registration recruitment: 57/118 (48.3%) vs. 24/31 (77.4%) (?(2) (1)?=?7.255, P?=?0.007). Major changes in the data entries were found for 31 (25.2%) RCTs. The number of RCTs with differences between registered and published data ranged from 21 (13.8%) for Study type to 118 (77.6%) for Target sample size. CONCLUSIONS:ICMJE journals published RCTs with proper registration but the registration data were often not adequate, underwent substantial changes in the registry over time and differed in registered and published data. Editors need to establish quality control procedures in the journals so that they continue to contribute to the increased transparency of clinical trials.
| S-EPMC3177887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times.ResultsThe response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request.ConclusionMany more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published; the extent to which such "secret disclosure" may impact the integrity of the journal or the published work is not known.
| S-EPMC1924760 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPublication lag between manuscript submission and its final publication is considered as an important factor affecting the decision to submit, the timeliness of presented data, and the scientometric measures of the particular journal. Dual-format peer-reviewed journals (publishing both print and online editions of their content) adopted a broadly accepted strategy to shorten the publication lag: to publish the accepted manuscripts online ahead of their print editions, which may follow days, but also years later. Effects of this widespread habit on the immediacy index (average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published) calculation were never analyzed.Methodology/principal findingsScopus database (which contains nearly up-to-date documents in press, but does not reveal citations by these documents until they are finalized) was searched for the journals with the highest total counts of articles in press, or highest counts of articles in press appearing online in 2010-2011. Number of citations received by the articles in press available online was found to be nearly equal to citations received within the year when the document was assigned to a journal issue. Thus, online publication of in press articles affects severely the calculation of immediacy index of their source titles, and disadvantages online-only and print-only journals when evaluating them according to the immediacy index and probably also according to the impact factor and similar measures.Conclusions/significanceCaution should be taken when evaluating dual-format journals supporting long publication lag. Further research should answer the question, on whether the immediacy index should be replaced by an indicator based on the date of first publication (online or in print, whichever comes first) to eliminate the problems analyzed in this report. Information value of immediacy index is further questioned by very high ratio of authors' self-citations among the citation window used for its calculation.
| S-EPMC3616011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceConflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies are critical to enhancing the integrity of research. However, it is unclear how Chinese medical journals interpret and enforce such policies.ObjectivesThe goal of this investigation is to determine the current status of COI disclosure policy enforcement in Chinese medical journals and to promote comprehensive COI policies.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted from September 1st to October 29th 2017, journal instructions, websites and print issues of journals indexed by the Core Journals of China (version 2014), in the medical and health sector, were reviewed to identify whether COI disclosure policies existed and how complete these policies were.ResultsOf 248 eligible journals, 78 (31%) mentioned COI policies; 9 (4%) applied standardized disclosure forms; 18 (7%) required disclosure statements in articles; 4 (2%) mentioned policy bases; none validated disclosed COIs; 2 (1%) mentioned how they dealt with breaches; 18 (7%) involved the management of disclosed COIs; and 62 (25%) and 55 (22%) noted financial and nonfinancial COIs, respectively. Seventy-eight journals (31%) mentioned COIs in research and authors' obligation towards disclosure; 2 (1%) and 6 (2%) mentioned family members' and institutional COIs, respectively. Twenty-two and 11 journals mentioned at least one form of financial and nonfinancial COI type in research, respectively. Seven journals (3%) required disclosure of the source of financial support in research, but no journals mentioned the amount of support. Seven (3%) and 12 (5%) journals mentioned COIs in the editorial process and peer-review, respectively. Clinical journals (45%) paid more attention to COI policies than non-clinical journals.ConclusionsApproximately one-third of Chinese medical journals had COI policies, and of the journals that mentioned financial COIs most required nonfinancial COIs. However, the extent to which journals implemented COI policies was insufficient. There is a generic lack of standardized disclosure forms and management of COIs in most journals. The subject and details of COIs involved in the editorial and peer-review process received less attention than those in research.
| S-EPMC6615603 | biostudies-literature