Elise Smith1, Marie-Josée Potvin, Bryn Williams-Jones. 1. Bioethics Programs, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. elise.smith@umontreal.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been significant discussion about the need to manage conflict of interest (COI) in medical journals. This has lead many journals to implement policies to manage COI for authors and reviewers; however, surprisingly little attention has been focused on the COI of journal editors. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this exploratory study was to determine whether the policies were accessible to the public and to researchers, and to discuss the potential impact on public transparency. DESIGN: The authors conducted an internet search of editor COI policy instruments that have been developed, implemented and communicated by the top 10 peer-reviewed medical journals (2010 ISI Web of Knowledge Impact Factor), and assessed their general accessibility by gauging the level of difficulty in navigating the journal's website (number of clicks to find the policy instruments). RESULTS: Only four of the 10 medical journals (40%) in this study have accessible COI policy directives that include editors (JIM, PLoS Medicine, AIM, CMAJ). One journal (NEJM) had an editorial on the subject, and another (The Lancet) mentioned editor COI in their general guidelines. These documents are not readily accessible; starting from the journal's main website at least four clicks are needed to access these documents. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that there is a general lack of accessible editor COI policy instruments among leading medical journals, something that may consequently have a negative impact on the trust accorded to these journals.
BACKGROUND: There has been significant discussion about the need to manage conflict of interest (COI) in medical journals. This has lead many journals to implement policies to manage COI for authors and reviewers; however, surprisingly little attention has been focused on the COI of journal editors. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this exploratory study was to determine whether the policies were accessible to the public and to researchers, and to discuss the potential impact on public transparency. DESIGN: The authors conducted an internet search of editor COI policy instruments that have been developed, implemented and communicated by the top 10 peer-reviewed medical journals (2010 ISI Web of Knowledge Impact Factor), and assessed their general accessibility by gauging the level of difficulty in navigating the journal's website (number of clicks to find the policy instruments). RESULTS: Only four of the 10 medical journals (40%) in this study have accessible COI policy directives that include editors (JIM, PLoS Medicine, AIM, CMAJ). One journal (NEJM) had an editorial on the subject, and another (The Lancet) mentioned editor COI in their general guidelines. These documents are not readily accessible; starting from the journal's main website at least four clicks are needed to access these documents. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that there is a general lack of accessible editor COI policy instruments among leading medical journals, something that may consequently have a negative impact on the trust accorded to these journals.
Authors: Jens Mani; Jasmina Makarević; Eva Juengel; Hanns Ackermann; Karen Nelson; Georg Bartsch; Axel Haferkamp; Roman A Blaheta Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-27 Impact factor: 3.240