Dataset Information

The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There is emerging evidence that food industry involvement in nutrition research may bias research findings and/or research agendas. However, the extent of food industry involvement in nutrition research has not been systematically explored. This study aimed to identify the extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed articles from a sample of leading nutrition-related journals, and to examine the extent to which findings from research involving the food industry support industry interests.

Methods

All original research articles published in 2018 in the top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals were analysed. We evaluated the proportion of articles that disclosed involvement from the food industry, including through author affiliations, funding sources, declarations of interest or other acknowledgments. Principal research findings from articles with food industry involvement, and a random sample of articles without food industry involvement, were categorised according to the extent to which they supported relevant food industry interests.

Results

196/1,461 (13.4%) articles reported food industry involvement. The extent of food industry involvement varied by journal, with The Journal of Nutrition (28.3%) having the highest and Paediatric Obesity (3.8%) having the lowest proportion of industry involvement. Processed food manufacturers were involved in the most articles (77/196, 39.3%). Of articles with food industry involvement, 55.6% reported findings favourable to relevant food industry interests, compared to 9.7% of articles without food industry involvement.

Conclusion

Food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research in leading nutrition-related journals is commonplace. In line with previous literature, this study has shown that a greater proportion of peer-reviewed studies involving the food industry have results that favour relevant food industry interests than peer-reviewed studies without food industry involvement. Given the potential competing interests of the food industry, it is important to explore mechanisms that can safeguard the integrity and public relevance of nutrition research.

SUBMITTER: Sacks G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7743938 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018.

Sacks Gary G Riesenberg Devorah D Mialon Melissa M Dean Sarah S Cameron Adrian J AJ

PloS one 20201216 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>There is emerging evidence that food industry involvement in nutrition research may bias research findings and/or research agendas. However, the extent of food industry involvement in nutrition research has not been systematically explored. This study aimed to identify the extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed articles from a sample of leading nutrition-related journals, and to examine the extent to which findings from research involving the food industry supp ...[more]

PMID: 33326431

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to national and global health security. The current study was undertaken to provide insights into the global scientific literature on vaccine hesitancy in peer-reviewed journals.MethodThe current study was a descriptive bibliometric study. A validated search strategy on vaccine hesitancy was implemented using SciVerse Scopus. Bibliometric indicators such as (1) annual growth of publications, (2) key players, (3) research themes, (4) pathogens/diseases encountered, (5) top-cited documents, and (6) annual growth of publications stratified by world region and by age category were presented. The study period was from 1990 to 2019.ResultsSearch strategy found 2791 documents. The h-index of the retrieved literature was 89. The leading journal was Vaccine (369; 13.2%%) followed by Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics (129; 4.6%). Authors from the USA led with 1125 (40.3%) followed by authors from Italy (234; 8.4%) and the UK (204; 7.3%). The US CDC led with 140 (5.0%) documents followed by Emory University (USA) (81, 2.9%). The list of active authors included six from the USA while the remaining were from France, Australia, and Canada. Research themes in the retrieved literature focused on influenza, human papillomavirus, and the role of parents in immunization of their children. The region of the Americas and the European region had the greatest share of publications and showed steep growth of publications lately. Vaccine hesitancy research on adolescents was most noticed after 2007 while that on children was present all the time but escalated lately. Titles/abstracts analysis indicated that 621(22.3%) documents focused on influenza, 392 (14.0%) focused on Human papillomavirus, and 292 (10.5%) focused on measles. The top-cited documents in literature published after 2015 focused on the definition and strategies to overcome vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionThe last decade witnessed a noticeable increase in the number of publications. Influenza vaccine and parental concerns about the human papillomavirus vaccine were the main focus of the retrieved literature. Information on vaccine hesitancy needs to be collected from all countries to build a better coalition against the anti-vaccination groups. Re-building trust in vaccines requires targeting parents by providing adequate information on the vaccines.

Project description:ImportanceHigh-quality peer reviews are often thought to be essential to ensuring the integrity of the scientific publication process, but measuring peer review quality is challenging. Although imperfect, review word count could potentially serve as a simple, objective metric of review quality.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of very short peer reviews and how often they inform editorial decisions on research articles in 3 leading general medical journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study compiled a data set of peer reviews from published, full-length original research articles from 3 general medical journals (The BMJ, PLOS Medicine, and BMC Medicine) between 2003 and 2022. Eligible articles were those with peer review data; all peer reviews used to make the first editorial decision (ie, accept vs revise and resubmit) were included.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of very short reviews was the primary outcome, which was defined as a review of fewer than 200 words. In secondary analyses, thresholds of fewer than 100 words and fewer than 300 words were used. Results were disaggregated by journal and year. The proportion of articles for which the first editorial decision was made based on a set of peer reviews in which very short reviews constituted 100%, 50% or more, 33% or more, and 20% or more of the reviews was calculated.ResultsIn this sample of 11 466 reviews (including 6086 in BMC Medicine, 3816 in The BMJ, and 1564 in PLOS Medicine) corresponding to 4038 published articles, the median (IQR) word count per review was 425 (253-575) words, and the mean (SD) word count was 520.0 (401.0) words. The overall prevalence of very short (<200 words) peer reviews was 1958 of 11 466 reviews (17.1%). Across the 3 journals, 843 of 4038 initial editorial decisions (20.9%) were based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews. The prevalence of very short reviews and share of editorial decisions based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews was highest for BMC Medicine (693 of 2585 editorial decisions [26.8%]) and lowest for The BMJ (76 of 1040 editorial decisions [7.3%]).Conclusion and relevanceIn this study of 3 leading general medical journals, one-fifth of initial editorial decisions for published articles were likely based at least partially on reviews of such short length that they were unlikely to be of high quality. Future research could determine whether monitoring peer review length improves the quality of peer reviews and which interventions, such as incentives and norm-based interventions, may elicit more detailed reviews.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been remarkable tobacco control progress in many places around the globe. Tobacco industry interference (TII) has been identified as the most significant barrier to further implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). Civil society has been recognised as a key actor in countering TII. While TII has been extensively studied for several decades now, there is little research that focuses on counteractions to limit it and their effectiveness to do so. This scoping review seeks to map the peer-reviewed literature on civil society's activities of countering TII in policymaking to identify common counterstrategies and assess their effectiveness.MethodsData sources: We searched Embase, IBSS, JSTOR, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science using the following terms: ("Tobacco industry" OR "Tobacco compan*") AND. ("corporate political activity" OR "CPA" OR "lobbying" OR "interference") AND ("advoca*" OR "counter*" OR "activi*"), without time or language restrictions.Study selectionOur selection criteria included peer-reviewed studies that were written in English, German, or Spanish that drew on primary data and/or legal and policy documents and reported at least one specific example of civil society members or organisations countering tobacco industry action-based strategies.Data extractionAdvocates' counterstrategies were analysed inductively and countered industry strategies were analysed using the Policy Dystopia Model (PDM). Perceptions of effectiveness of countering attempts were analysed descriptively.ResultsWe found five common counterstrategies among 30 included papers covering five WHO regions; 1. Exposing industry conduct and false claims; 2. Accessing decision-makers; 3. Generating and using evidence; 4. Filing a complaint or taking legal action; 5. Mobilising coalition and potential supporters. These counterstrategies were used to work against a wide range of industry strategies, which are captured by five action-based strategies described in the PDM (Coalition Management, Information Management, Direct Access and Influence, Litigation, Reputation Management). While some studies reported the outcome of the countering activities, their impact remained largely underexplored.ConclusionThe review shows that peer-reviewed literature documenting how civil society actors counter TII is scarce. It suggests that advocates employ a range of strategies to counter TII in its different forms and use them flexibly. More work is needed to better understand the effects of their actions. This could stimulate discussions about, and facilitate learning from, past experiences and help to further enhance advocates' capacity.

Dataset Information

The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets