Evaluating the prevalence and quality of conference codes of conduct.

Efforts to increase inclusion in science face multiple barriers, including cultural and social behaviors in settings such as academic conferences. Conferences are beneficial, but the culture can promote inequities and power differentials that harm historically underrepresented groups. Science suffers when conference culture propagates exclusion and discrimination that leads to attrition of scientists. Codes of conduct represent a tool to shift conference culture to better support diverse scientists and clearly detail unacceptable behaviors. We examined the prevalence and content of codes of conduct at biology conferences in the United States and Canada. We highlight how codes of conduct address issues of sexual misconduct and identity-based discrimination. Surprisingly, only 24% of the 195 surveyed conferences had codes. Of the conferences with codes, 43% did not mention sexual misconduct and 17% did not mention identity-based discrimination. Further, 26% of these conferences failed to include a way to report violations of the code and 35% lacked consequences for misconduct. We found that larger and national conferences are more likely to have codes than smaller (P = 0.04) and international or regional (P = 0.03) conferences. Conferences that lack codes risk creating and perpetuating negative environments that make underrepresented groups feel unwelcome, or worse, actively cause harm. We recommend that conferences have codes that are easily accessible, explicitly address identity-based discrimination and sexual misconduct, provide channels for anonymous impartial reporting, and contain clear consequences. These efforts will improve inclusivity and reduce the loss of scientists who have been historically marginalized.

Discrepancies between author- and industry-reported disclosures of financial relationships at an annual gynecologic oncology research meeting.

OBJECTIVE: Trillions of dollars pass to physicians from industry-related businesses annually, leading to many opportunities for financial conflicts of interest. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was created to ensure transparency. We describe the industry relationships as reported in the OPD for presenters at the 2019 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Annual Meeting and evaluate concordance between author disclosures of their financial interests and information provided by the OPD. METHODS: This is an observational, cross-sectional study. Disclosure data were collected from authors with oral and featured abstract presentations in the 2019 SGO annual conference. These disclosures were compared to data available for each author in the 2018 OPD, which included the amount and nature of industry payments. RESULTS: We examined the disclosures of 301 authors who met inclusion criteria. Of 161 authors who had disclosure statements on their presentations,147 reported "no disclosures," and 14 disclosed industry relationships. The remaining 140 did not list any disclosure information. Sixty percent (184/301) of authors had industry relationships in the 2018 OPD, including 173 of 287 (60.3%) of authors who either reported no disclosures or did not have disclosure data available in their presentations. These transactions totaled over 43 million USD from 122 different companies, with most payments (46%) categorized as "Research or Associated Research." Accurate disclosure reporting was associated with receiving higher payments or research payments, and being a presenting author. CONCLUSIONS: Most authors at the SGO annual conference did not correctly disclose their industry relationships when compared with their entries in the OPD.

Invitation to Speak at a Conference: The Tempting Technique Adopted by Predatory Conferences' Organizers.

In recent years, predatory journals, conferences, and publishers have turned to an inevitable threat in scientific publishing. Researchers, regardless of their disciplines, should be aware of these predators and have to be able to recognize them. The main aim of the present paper is to raise awareness about the growing menace of fake invitations to speak at a scientific conference organized by predatory organizers and publishers. Some subtle signs to identify the fake invitations from the authentic ones have been introduced and discussed.

Research ethics committee approval as reported for abstracts submitted to the annual Euroanaesthesia meeting.

BACKGROUND: The annual congress of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) is one of the largest anaesthesia congresses in the world and exhibits more than 1200 abstracts annually. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to quantify the frequency of inadequate evidence of ethical approval for abstracts submitted to the ESA congress and to examine whether abstracts without appropriate ethical approval were subsequently accepted. DESIGN AND SETTING: All abstracts submitted in 2015 were adjudicated according to European ethical criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of submitted abstracts that lacked evidence of appropriate ethics committee approval. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of accepted abstract that lacked evidence of appropriate ethical approval; the proportion of correctly identified case reports; the proportion of accepted abstracts that lacked evidence of appropriate ethics committee approvals corresponding to location (within/outside Europe); and the proportion of accepted abstracts that lacked evidence of appropriate ethics committee approvals corresponding to a specific area of research. RESULTS: In total, 1792 abstracts were reviewed and 1572 (87.7%) involved humans. In 527 (29.4%), the authors failed to demonstrate adequate ethical approval with higher rates in abstracts submitted from Europe (32.1%) than the rest of the world (23.5%), P < 0.001. Appropriate approvals were reported in 80% of animal studies, 74.6% of case reports and 57.6% of human research studies. The proportion with evidence of adequate ethical approvals was lowest in obstetric anaesthesia and emergency medicine. Case reports were identified correctly 98.6% (347/352) of the time, but 14 research abstracts were assigned wrongly to this category. Most abstracts (68.5%, 361/527) lacking evidence of ethical approval were still accepted for presentation. CONCLUSION: Research abstracts lacking evidence of appropriate ethical approval are common worldwide. Societies shoulder the responsibility for ensuring that only ethically sound abstracts are presented at meetings. Abstract submission systems must include mechanisms to ensure that publications are accepted and judged not just on scientific merit but also on adherence to best ethical practice.

Conference Wolves in Sheep's Clothing.

In some cases, organizing a conference resembles a high-profit business. Some of these conferences are wolves in sheep's clothing. This article draws readers' attention to current examples of such unethical business conferences.

When is medical industry backing lacking?

A sales representative from Megastint approached Dr A. Krasia with an offer to financially support future educational conferences and allow his institution to be a training center if he participates in a new study comparing an old product to a recently approved and more expensive one. Dr Krasia and his department currently use Megastint's products. The medical center's utilization committee must approve the addition of more expensive pharmaceuticals, devices, or equipment, and Dr Krasia is the chair. How should Dr Krasia respond to Megastint's offer of financial support and to become a training center?

"Evidence-debased medicine" and the integrity of the medical profession.

Patients trust physicians to prescribe based on their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their patients, and physicians prescribe based on confidence in research data and clinical guidelines. Recent reports erode confidence in evidence-based medicine. Through self-regulation and a willingness to change, the medical profession can assert its status as a profession distinct from outside influence, serving one interest: the healthcare of patients and the public.

Lessons from an initiative to address gender bias.

How a letter addressing the lack of women invited to speak at a conference in brain stimulation encouraged researchers to take action.