Female dermatology journal editors accepting pharmaceutical payments: An analysis of the Open Payments database, 2013 to 2018.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Pharmaceutical payments may affect the interpretation of clinical research and prescribing patterns of physicians. Additionally, they may reflect gender disparities in academic dermatology with regard to social recognition and opportunities for career advancement.Objective
We examined relationships with industry among male and female journal editors who accepted pharmaceutical payments in leading dermatology journals.Methods
We assessed the seven US journals among the leading 20 dermatology journals as determined by impact factor and gathered data via the CMS Open Payments dataset.Results
In a cross-sectional study of 329 editors eligible to appear in the Open Payments website, we found that 218 (66.3%) received industry payments totaling $21,952,402. The mean and median dollar value of payments per editor was $100,699 and $3,638 (interquartile range, $364-$57,108). Food and beverage payments accounted for 63.0% of the $28,992 total payments, and the associated dollar value was $887,617 (4.04%). Gender disparities in corporate payments were observed in other contexts, but we did not find a similar relationship among leading dermatology journals.Conclusion
Our work highlights that pharmaceutical payments exist among dermatology editors, providing a rationale for future research to address whether editor bias related to pharmaceutical payments exists and more granular studies on the role of gender with regard to navigating such payments.
SUBMITTER: Haque W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8484990 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objective To estimate financial payments from industry to US journal editors.Design Retrospective observational study.Setting 52 influential (high impact factor for their specialty) US medical journals from 26 specialties and US Open Payments database, 2014.Participants 713 editors at the associate level and above identified from each journal's online masthead.Main outcome measures All general payments (eg, personal income) and research related payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to eligible physicians in 2014. Percentages of editors receiving payments and the magnitude of such payments were compared across journals and by specialty. Journal websites were also reviewed to determine if conflict of interest policies for editors were readily accessible.Results Of 713 eligible editors, 361 (50.6%) received some (>$0) general payments in 2014, and 139 (19.5%) received research payments. The median general payment was $11 (£8; €9) (interquartile range $0-2923) and the median research payment was $0 ($0-0). The mean general payment was $28 136 (SD $415 045), and the mean research payment was $37 963 (SD $175 239). The highest median general payments were received by journal editors from endocrinology ($7207, $0-85 816), cardiology ($2664, $0-12 912), gastroenterology ($696, $0-20 002), rheumatology ($515, $0-14 280), and urology ($480, $90-669). For high impact general medicine journals, median payments were $0 ($0-14). A review of the 52 journal websites revealed that editor conflict of interest policies were readily accessible (ie, within five minutes) for 17/52 (32.7%) of journals.Conclusions Industry payments to journal editors are common and often large, particularly for certain subspecialties. Journals should consider the potential impact of such payments on public trust in published research.
| S-EPMC5655612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) play significant roles in most medical fields. However, little is known about the extent of financial Conflicts of Interest (FCOIs) related to pharmaceutical companies (Pharma) selling dermatology prescription products and dermatology CPG authors in Japan. The aims of this study were to elucidate the characteristics and distribution of payments from Pharma to dermatology CPG authors in Japan, and to evaluate the extent of transparency and accuracy in their FCOI disclosures. We analyzed the records of 296 authors from 32 dermatology CPGs published by the Japanese Dermatological Association from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2018. Using the payment data reported by 79 Pharma between 2016-2017 in Japan, we investigated the characteristics of the CPG authors and the payments from the Pharma to them. Furthermore, we evaluated the transparency and accuracy of the FCOI disclosures of the individual CPG authors. Of the 296 CPGs authors, 269 authors (90.6%) received at least one payment from the Pharma. The total monetary value of payments for the 2-year period was $7,128,762. The median and mean monetary value of payments from the Pharma reporting were $10,281 (interquartile range $2,796 -$34,962) and $26,600 (standard deviation $40,950) for the two years combined. Of the 26 CPG authors who disclosed FCOIs due to the monies received from Pharma, only the atopic dermatitis CPG authors and the acne vulgaris CPG authors published their potential FCOIs. In Japan, most dermatology CPG authors received financial payments from Pharma. The transparency of the CPGs, as reported by the CPG authors, was inadequate, and a more rigorous framework of reporting and monitoring FCOI disclosure is required to improve the accuracy and transparency with relation to possible Conflicts of Interest.
| S-EPMC7553305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Over the past 50 years the proportion of women entering medical school has vastly increased, however there still exists a gender gap in top leadership positions, including within academic medicine. It is important to investigate the influence of women in this area, and assess change over time. The aim of the study was to assess the number of women who have acted as editors-in-chief of prominent dermatology journals over the 20th and 21st centuries. Methods:A list of 25 journals was collated based on their impact factors and prominence. Information regarding previous and current editors was obtained, compiled and analysed. Results:Overall there have been 26 female editors and at least 128 male editors in the 25 dermatology journals, which means that less than 19% of editors-in-chief have been female. 45.8% of journals have not yet had a female editor. The percentage of female editors ranged from 0% to 100%, with only one journal having had all female editors (International Journal of Women's Dermatology). On average, the journals had female editorship for 27.2% of the total number of years in publication. Of the 13 journals that have had a female editor, 61.5% had their first female editor after the year 2000. Discussion and Conclusion:There are various factors that influence these numbers including age of the journals and length of each editorship. It is clear that over time there has been an increase in the number of women holding these prestigious positions however gender equity has not yet been reached.
| S-EPMC5715225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The work of journal editors is essential to producing high-quality literature, and editing can be a very rewarding career; however, the profession may not be immune to gender pay gaps found in many professions and industries, including academia and clinical medicine. Our study aimed to quantify remuneration for journal editors from core clinical journals, determine if a gender pay gap exists, and assess if there are remuneration differences across publishing models and journal characteristics. Methods: We completed an online survey of journal editors with substantial editing roles including section editors and editors-in-chief, identified from the Abridged Index Medicus "Core Clinical" journals in MEDLINE. We analyzed information on demographics, editing income, and journal characteristics using a multivariable partial proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Results: There were 166 survey respondents (response rate of 9%), which represented editors from 69 of 111 journals (62%). A total of 140 fully completed surveys were analyzed (95 males and 45 females); 50 (36%) editors did not receive remuneration for editorial work. No gender pay gap and no difference in remuneration between editors who worked in subscription-based publishing vs. open access journals were detected. Editors who were not primarily health care providers were more likely to have higher editing incomes (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-7.46). Editors who worked more than 10 hours per week editing earned more than those who worked 10 hours or less per week (adjusted OR 16.7, 95%CI 7.02-39.76). Conclusions: We were unable to detect a gender pay gap and a difference in remuneration between editors who worked in subscription-based publishing and those in open access journals. More than one third of editors surveyed from core clinical journals did not get remunerated for their editing work.
| S-EPMC7836083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.
| S-EPMC7717900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:It is well documented that financial conflicts of interest influence medical research and clinical practice. Prior to the Open Payments provisions of the Affordable Care Act, financial ties became apparent only through self-disclosure. The nature of financial interests has not been studied among physicians who develop dermatology clinical practice guidelines. Objective:To evaluate payments received by physicians who author dermatology clinical practice guidelines, compare disclosure statements for accuracy, determine whether pharmaceutical companies from which the authors received payments manufactured products related to the guidelines, and examine the extent to which the American Academy of Dermatology enforced their Administrative Regulations for guideline development. Design, Setting, and Participants:Three American Academy of Dermatology guidelines published from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved. Double data extraction was used to record financial payments received by 49 guideline authors using the Open Payments database. Payments received by the authors from the date of the initial literature search to the date of publication were used to evaluate disclosure statement accuracy, detail the companies providing payments, and evaluate Administrative Regulations enforcement. This study is applicable to clinical practice guideline panels drafting recommendations, physicians using clinical practice guidelines to inform patient care, and those establishing policies for guideline development. Main Outcomes and Measures:Our main outcomes are the monetary values and types of payments received by physicians who author dermatology guidelines and the accuracy of disclosure statements. Data were collected from the Open Payments database and analyzed descriptively. Results:Of the 49 authors evaluated, 40 received at least 1 reported industry payment, 31 accepted more than $1000, 25 accepted more than $10?000, and 18 accepted more than $50?000. Financial payments amounted to a mean of $157?177 per author. The total reimbursement among the 49 authors from 2013 to 2015 was $7?701?681. Of the 40 authors receiving payments, 22 did not accurately disclose industry relationships. Authors received payments from companies with products directly related to the guideline topic. Violations to the Administrative Regulations were found. Conclusions and Relevance:Dermatology clinical practice guideline authors received sizable industry payments and did not completely disclose these payments. The American Academy of Dermatology policies may benefit from stricter enforcement or the adoption of new standards.
| S-EPMC5817443 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate German physicians' attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies in a public database and their impact on future decisions for or against disclosure.DesignA national cross-sectional survey conducted in 2018 among physicians who voluntarily disclosed at least one payment in the German transparency regulation.SettingRetrospective paper-pencil questionnaire about attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary payment disclosures in the first (2015) and second (2016) years of the German transparency regulation.ParticipantsGerman physicians who disclosed either in the first year only, the second year only, or in both years of the transparency regulation.Primary outcomes(1) The probability to disclose in 2016, predicted by physicians' experience of reactions from others in 2015, descriptive norms and attitudes towards transparency; (2) Frequency and (3) Content of reactions from others in 2015 compared with 2016.ResultsData of 234 respondents were analysed (n=42, 45 and 147 physicians who disclosed in 2015, 2016 or both years, respectively). The probability to disclose in 2016 was not predicted by perceived reactions, norms or attitudes towards transparency (p>0.01). Most participants reported not to have received any reactions by patients (190/234, 81%), colleagues (128/234, 55%) or the private environment (153/234, 65%). Neither frequency nor content of reactions differed between the first and second years (scale 1-5; frequency: Mdn 2015,2016 = 1.33 vs 1.00, r b=-0.17, p>0.01; content: Mdn 2015,2016 = 3.00 vs 3.00, r b=0.19, p>0.01). However, media reporting, fear of reputational damage and a feeling of being defamed were mentioned as reasons for non-disclosure.ConclusionsWhile confirmatory analyses did not provide significant results, descriptive analyses showed that participants who voluntarily disclose payments mainly do not experience any reactions towards their disclosures but report fears about losing their reputation due to disclosures.
| S-EPMC9234799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A team of stakeholders in biomedical publishing recently proposed a set of core competencies for journal editors, as a resource that can inform training programs for editors and ultimately improve the quality of the biomedical research literature. This initiative, still in its early stages, would benefit from additional sources of expert information. Based on our experiences as authors' editors, we offer two suggestions on how to strengthen these competencies so that they better respond to the needs of readers and authors - the main users of and contributors to research journals. First, journal editors should be able to ensure that authors are given useful feedback on the language and writing in submitted manuscripts, beyond a (possibly incorrect) blanket judgement of whether the English is "acceptable" or not. Second, journal editors should be able to deal effectively with inappropriate text re-use and plagiarism. These additional competencies would, we believe, be valued by other stakeholders in biomedical research publication as markers of editorial quality.
| S-EPMC5811667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors' workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically improve editorial strategies. The artificially evolved strategy reduced the duration of the peer review process by 30%, without increasing the pool of reviewers (in comparison to a typical human-developed strategy). Evolutionary computation has typically been used in technological processes or biological ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that genetic programs can improve real-world social systems that are usually much harder to understand and control than physical systems.
| S-EPMC5607159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An increased awareness of the interactions between the medical industry and health care professionals may lead to lower health care costs and more effective health care practices. To assess the characteristics of industry payments made to ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2017. This analysis included data reported in the June 29, 2018, update of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD). The OPD contains public records of industry payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, as reported by the medical industry. All general or research payments distributed to US ophthalmologists and contained in the OPD were included in this study. Data are summarized by practitioner, manufacturer, payment category, and geographic location. Main outcomes were the distribution, quantity, and value of payments made to ophthalmologists practicing in the United States or US territories. The financial characteristics of payment category, manufacturer, product, and location were also assessed. This analysis revealed that the OPD showed industry reporting a total of 20 943 ophthalmologists receiving 736 517 payments worth $543 679 603.53 (1.67% of all industry-reported funds in the OPD). The median payment value was $22.44. Most payments were for food and beverages (581 588 [78.96%]), whereas most funds were allocated toward research ($310 142 151.88 [57.05%]) and consulting fees ($73 565 327.71 [13.51%]). The median payout to each ophthalmologist was $637.75 (interquartile range, $167.33-$2065.54). California was the highest-grossing state, receiving $101 135 980.34 (18.60%) of all payments. Fifteen companies were responsible for 87.68% of all funds distributed ($476 719 470.11) and were mostly involved in the production of pharmaceutical agents (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma eyedrops, and ocular lubricants) and surgical devices (cataract and glaucoma). Although there is no way to know the veracity of these reports, the findings suggest the financial ophthalmologist-industry relationship is substantial. These relationships may be adding to health care costs and affecting the quality of care, although those associations were not evaluated in this study.
| S-EPMC6613310 | biostudies-literature