Eve Courbon1, Cynthia Tanguay2, Denis Lebel3, Jean-François Bussières4. 1. est candidate au D. Pharm et assistante de recherche à l'Unité de recherche en pratique pharmaceutique, Centre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine, Montréal, Québec. Elle est aussi interne en pharmacie, Université Paris Sud XI, Paris, France. 2. , B. Sc., M. Sc, est coordonnatrice à l'Unité de recherche en pratique pharmaceutique, Centre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine, Montréal, Québec. 3. , B. Pharm., M. Sc., FCSHP, est Adjoint, Département de pharmacie et Unité de recherche en pratique pharmaceutique, Centre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine, Montréal, Québec. 4. , B. Pharm., M. Sc., FCSHP, est Chef, Département de pharmacie et Unité de recherche en pratique pharmaceutique, Centre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine, Montréal, Québec. Il est aussi professeur titulaire de clinique, Faculté de pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Honorary and ghost authorship, as well as competing interests, are well documented concerns related to the publication of scientific articles. Guidelines for writing and publishing scientific manuscripts are available, including those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this descriptive cross-sectional study was to identify, in the instructions for authors of pharmacy practice journals, guidance on authorship and competing interests. The secondary objective was to suggest suitable corrective measures for more transparent authorship. METHODS: The first step of the project was to identify journals in the area of pharmacy practice. The instructions for authors of each journal were then reviewed to determine recommendations for avoiding problems related to authorship and competing interests. Finally, the members of the research team formulated potential corrective measures for researchers. RESULTS: Of 232 pharmacy journals identified, 33 were deemed to focus on pharmacy practice. A total of 24 (73%) of these journals mentioned that they followed ICMJE policies, 14 (42%) asked authors to complete a competing interests disclosure form at the time of submission, 17 (52%) had a formal definition of authorship, and 5 (15%) asked for details of each author's contribution. A list of 40 criteria was developed to define authorship status. CONCLUSION: Fewer than half of the journals asked authors to provide a competing interests disclosure form upon submission of an article, and only half had a formal definition of authorship. The scientific publication of papers relevant to pharmacy practice is not free from issues related to publication transparency. Publishing articles online and using a checklist to detail each author's contribution may help to limit the associated risks. [Publisher's translation].
BACKGROUND: Honorary and ghost authorship, as well as competing interests, are well documented concerns related to the publication of scientific articles. Guidelines for writing and publishing scientific manuscripts are available, including those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this descriptive cross-sectional study was to identify, in the instructions for authors of pharmacy practice journals, guidance on authorship and competing interests. The secondary objective was to suggest suitable corrective measures for more transparent authorship. METHODS: The first step of the project was to identify journals in the area of pharmacy practice. The instructions for authors of each journal were then reviewed to determine recommendations for avoiding problems related to authorship and competing interests. Finally, the members of the research team formulated potential corrective measures for researchers. RESULTS: Of 232 pharmacy journals identified, 33 were deemed to focus on pharmacy practice. A total of 24 (73%) of these journals mentioned that they followed ICMJE policies, 14 (42%) asked authors to complete a competing interests disclosure form at the time of submission, 17 (52%) had a formal definition of authorship, and 5 (15%) asked for details of each author's contribution. A list of 40 criteria was developed to define authorship status. CONCLUSION: Fewer than half of the journals asked authors to provide a competing interests disclosure form upon submission of an article, and only half had a formal definition of authorship. The scientific publication of papers relevant to pharmacy practice is not free from issues related to publication transparency. Publishing articles online and using a checklist to detail each author's contribution may help to limit the associated risks. [Publisher's translation].