David B Resnik1, Brandon Konecny, Grace E Kissling. 1. Ethics Office, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park (Dr Resnik); North Carolina Central University, Durham (Konecny); and Biostatistics & Computational Biology Branch, NIEHS/NIH, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Dr Kissling).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze conflict of interest (COI) and funding disclosure policies of 224 journals listed in Journal Citation Reports as focusing on environmental, occupational, or public health research. METHODS: A survey of journal policies and content analysis. RESULTS: About 96.0% of the policies required COI disclosure, 92.4% required funding disclosure, 75.9% defined COIs, 69.6% provided examples of COIs, 68.8% addressed nonfinancial COIs, 33.9% applied to editors and reviewers, 32.1% required discussion of the role of the funding source, and 1.8% included enforcement mechanisms. Policies were significantly associated with journal impact factor and publisher. CONCLUSION: Although a high percentage of journals in our sample have COI policies that provide substantial guidance to authors, there is a room for improvement. Journals that have not done so should consider developing enforcement mechanisms and applying COI policies to editors and reviewers.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze conflict of interest (COI) and funding disclosure policies of 224 journals listed in Journal Citation Reports as focusing on environmental, occupational, or public health research. METHODS: A survey of journal policies and content analysis. RESULTS: About 96.0% of the policies required COI disclosure, 92.4% required funding disclosure, 75.9% defined COIs, 69.6% provided examples of COIs, 68.8% addressed nonfinancial COIs, 33.9% applied to editors and reviewers, 32.1% required discussion of the role of the funding source, and 1.8% included enforcement mechanisms. Policies were significantly associated with journal impact factor and publisher. CONCLUSION: Although a high percentage of journals in our sample have COI policies that provide substantial guidance to authors, there is a room for improvement. Journals that have not done so should consider developing enforcement mechanisms and applying COI policies to editors and reviewers.