Dataset Information

Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Physician scientists who are also Editorial Board members or Associate Editors may prefer publishing in their own journal and therefore create an environment for conflicts of interest to arise.

Objectives

To assess the relationship between the number of peer-reviewed publications in surgical journals in which authors serve as Editorial Board Members and Associate Editors and their total number of annual publications.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional study utilizing PubMed was performed regarding the total annual number of peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and the number published in their respective affiliated journals from 2016 to 2019. Significance defined as p < 0.05.

Results

80 Associate Editors and 721 Editorial Board Members (n = 801 total) were analyzed from 10 surgical journals. The mean number of total annual peer-reviewed publications varied from 5.19 to 17.18. The mean number of annual peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals varied from 0.06 to 2.53. Multiple significant associations were discovered between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications and number of peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals for all authors/surgical journals evaluated, except for the International Journal of Surgery (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

We found significant associations between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and number of annual peer-reviewed publications by their affiliated surgical journals. The implementation and enforcement of a standardized double-blind review process and mandatory reporting of any potential conflicts of interest can reduce possible bias and promote a fair and high-quality peer-review process.

SUBMITTER: Sen-Crowe B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7595936 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.

Sen-Crowe Brendon B Sutherland Mason M Shir Adam A Kinslow Kyle K Boneva Dessy D McKenney Mark M Elkbuli Adel A

Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) 20201027

<h4>Background</h4>Physician scientists who are also Editorial Board members or Associate Editors may prefer publishing in their own journal and therefore create an environment for conflicts of interest to arise.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the relationship between the number of peer-reviewed publications in surgical journals in which authors serve as Editorial Board Members and Associate Editors and their total number of annual publications.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A cross-sectional study ...[more]

PMID: 33944862

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinical trial registries are intended to increase clinical research transparency by nonselectively identifying and documenting clinical trial designs and outcomes. Inconsistencies in reported data undermine the utility of such registries and have previously been noted in general medical literature.ObjectiveTo assess whether inconsistencies in reported data exist between ophthalmic literature and clinical trial registries.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional study, interventional clinical trials published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014, in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology were reviewed. Observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, and post hoc reports were excluded, yielding a sample size of 106 articles. Data collection was performed from January through September 2016. Data review and adjudication continued through January 2017.Main outcomes and measuresIf possible, articles were matched to registry entries listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database or in 1 of 16 international registries indexed by the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform version 3.2 search engine. Each article-registry pair was assessed for inconsistencies in design, results, and funding (each of which was further divided into subcategories) by 2 reviewers and adjudicated by a third.ResultsOf 106 trials that met the study criteria, matching registry entries were found for 68 (64.2%), whereas no matching registry entries were found for 38 (35.8%). Inconsistencies were identified in study design, study results, and funding sources, including specific interventions in 8 (11.8%), primary outcome measure (POM) designs in 32 (47.1%), and POM results in 48 (70.6%). In addition, numerous data pieces were unreported, including analysis methods in 52 (76.5%) and POM results in 38 (55.9%).Conclusions and relevanceClinical trial registries were underused in this sample of ophthalmology clinical trials. For studies with registry data, inconsistency rates between published and registered data were similar to those previously reported for general medical literature. In most cases, inconsistencies involved missing data, but explicit discrepancies in methods and/or data were also found. Transparency and credibility of published trials may be improved by closer attention to their registration and reporting.

Project description:ImportancePreprints have been widely adopted to enhance the timely dissemination of research across many scientific fields. Concerns remain that early, public access to preliminary medical research has the potential to propagate misleading or faulty research that has been conducted or interpreted in error.ObjectiveTo evaluate the concordance among study characteristics, results, and interpretations described in preprints of clinical studies posted to medRxiv that are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals (preprint-journal article pairs).Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed all preprints describing clinical studies that were initially posted to medRxiv in September 2020 and subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal as of September 15, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresFor preprint-journal article pairs describing clinical trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses that measured health-related outcomes, the sample size, primary end points, corresponding results, and overarching conclusions were abstracted and compared. Sample size and results from primary end points were considered concordant if they had exact numerical equivalence.ResultsAmong 1399 preprints first posted on medRxiv in September 2020, a total of 1077 (77.0%) had been published as of September 15, 2022, a median of 6 months (IQR, 3-8 months) after preprint posting. Of the 547 preprint-journal article pairs describing clinical trials, observational studies, or meta-analyses, 293 (53.6%) were related to COVID-19. Of the 535 pairs reporting sample sizes in both sources, 462 (86.4%) were concordant; 43 (58.9%) of the 73 pairs with discordant sample sizes had larger samples in the journal publication. There were 534 pairs (97.6%) with concordant and 13 pairs (2.4%) with discordant primary end points. Of the 535 pairs with numerical results for the primary end points, 434 (81.1%) had concordant primary end point results; 66 of the 101 discordant pairs (65.3%) had effect estimates that were in the same direction and were statistically consistent. Overall, 526 pairs (96.2%) had concordant study interpretations, including 82 of the 101 pairs (81.2%) with discordant primary end point results.Conclusions and relevanceMost clinical studies posted as preprints on medRxiv and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals had concordant study characteristics, results, and final interpretations. With more than three-fourths of preprints published in journals within 24 months, these results may suggest that many preprints report findings that are consistent with the final peer-reviewed publications.

Project description:BackgroundPreprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.MethodsThe study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article.ResultsThe search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint-article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73-187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71-464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint-article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found.ConclusionsEffect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles.

Dataset Information

Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.

Background

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets