Assessment of self-reported financial conflicts of interest in vascular surgery studies.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: With increased collaboration between surgeons and industry, there has been a push towards improving transparency of conflicts of interest (COIs). This study aims to determine the accuracy of reporting of COIs among studies in major vascular surgery journals. METHODS: A literature search identified all comparative studies published from January 2018 through December 2018 from three major United States vascular surgery journals (Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, and Annals of Vascular Surgery). Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior. RESULTS: A total of 239 studies (1642 authors) were identified. Two hundred twenty-one studies (92%) and 669 authors (63%) received undisclosed payments when utilizing a cut-off payment amount of $250. In 2018, 10,778 payments (totaling $22,174,578) were made by 145 companies. Food and beverage payments were the most commonly reported transaction (42%), but accounted for only 3% of total reported monetary values. Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median general payments compared with authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($56,581 [interquartile range, $2441-$100,551] vs $2361 [interquartile range, $525-$9,699]; P < .001). When stratifying by dollar-amount discrepancy, the proportions of authors receiving undisclosed payments decreased with increasing payment thresholds. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that first and senior authors were both significantly more likely to have undisclosed payments (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.6 and odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-5.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant discordance between self-reported COI in vascular surgery studies compared with payments received in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. This study highlights the need for increased efforts to both improve definitions of what constitutes a relevant COI and encourage a standardized reporting process for vascular surgery studies.

Financial Conflicts of Interest of United States-Based Authors in Neurology Journals: Cross-Sectional Study Using the Open Payments Database.

OBJECTIVE: To detail the scope, nature, and disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between the pharmaceutical and medical device industries (Industry) and authors in high-impact clinical neurology journals. METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD), we retrieved information on payments from Industry to 2,000 authors from randomly selected 2016 articles in 5 journals. We categorized payments by type (research, general, and associated research/institutional), sponsoring entity, and year (from 2013 to 2016). Each author's self-disclosures were compared to OPD-listed Industry relationships to measure discordance. Payments were manually reviewed to identify those from manufacturers of products that were directly tested or discussed in the article. We also quantified the prevalence and value of these nondisclosed, relevant COI. RESULTS: Two hundred authors from 158 articles had at least 1 OPD payment. Median/mean annual payments per author were $4,229/$19,586 (general); $1,702/$5,966 (research); and $67,512/$362,102 (associated research). Most neurologists received <$1,000/y (74.6%, 93.0%, and 79.5% for general, research, and associated research, respectively), but a sizeable minority (>10% of authors) received more than $10,000 per year, and several received over $1 million. Of 3,013 payments deemed directly relevant to the article, 50.9% were not self-disclosed by the authors, totaling $5,782,197 ($1,665,603 general; $25,532 research; $4,091,062 associated research). CONCLUSION: Industry-related financial relationships are prevalent among United States-based physicians publishing in major neurology journals, and incomplete self-disclosure is common. As a profession, academic and other neurologists must work to establish firm rules to ensure and manage disclosure of financial COI.

Science's moral economy of repair: Replication and the circulation of reference.

Responding to the so-called reproducibility crisis, various disciplines have proposed - and some have implemented - changes in research practices and policies. These changes have been aligned with a restricted and rather uniform conceptualization of what science is, and knowledge is made. However, knowledge-making is not a uniform affair. Here, we reflect on a salient fault line running through Wissenschaft (the whole of academic knowledge making, spanning the sciences and humanities), grounded in the relationship between the acts of research and writing, separating research as reporting from research as writing. We do so to demonstrate that replication and replicability cannot be treated as uniformly applicable and that assessment and improvement of research quality invites various tools and strategies. Among those, replication is important, but not omnipresent. Considering these other tools and strategies in context allows us to situate the value of replication for knowledge making as a whole.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Emergency Medicine Journals' Editorial Boards.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to characterize the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among emergency medicine journal editorial board members. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of editorial board members of leading peer-reviewed emergency medicine journals. A list of highly cited emergency medicine journals was curated with Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics. Financial conflicts of interest were obtained by curating the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments database for the most recently available data (2017). The outcomes of this study were prevalence of financial conflicts of interest and frequency of disclosure on each journal's Web site. RESULTS: Editorial boards of the top 5 journals were analyzed. Of the 198 unique US-based physician-editors, 60 (30.3%) had a financial conflict of interest documented as general or research-based payments. The 52 editors with general payments had a median of 2 payments (interquartile range [IQR] 1 to 8.25), with a median of $202 (IQR $69 to $7,386); the maximum general payment was $115,730 received from industry. For research payments, 26 editors (13.1%) had a median 4 payments (IQR 2 to 9), with a median of $47,095 (IQR $5,328 to $126,025) and maximum of $3,590,000 received from industry. Seven editors in one of the emergency medicine journals included in this study publicly disclosed competing interests; dollar amounts were not reported. CONCLUSION: Nearly one third of US-based editors at leading emergency medicine journals had financial conflicts of interest, although only one journal publicly disclosed the presence of payments. Public disclosure of editorial board members' financial relationships with industry may allow for more transparency related to the content published in these journals.

Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally.

We analyzed 2898 scientific papers published between 1995 and 2017 in which two or more authors shared the first author position. For papers in which the first and second authors made equal contributions, mixed-gender combinations were most frequent, followed by male-male and then female-female author combinations. For mixed-gender combinations, more male authors were in the first position, although the disparity decreased over time. For papers in which three or more authors made equal contributions, there were more male authors than female authors in the first position and more all-male than all-female author combinations. The gender inequalities observed among authors who made equal contributions are not consistent with random or alphabetical ordering of authors. These results raise concerns about female authors not receiving proper credit for publications and suggest a need for journals to request clarity on the method used to decide author order among those who contributed equally.

Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Anesthesiology.

Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model that applies charges under the pretense of legitimate publishing operations without actually providing the editorial services associated with legitimate journals. The aim of this study was to analyze this phenomenon in the field of anesthesiology and related specialties (intensive care, critical and respiratory medicine, pain medicine, and emergency care). Two authors independently surveyed a freely accessible, constantly updated version of the original Beall lists of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and standalone journals. We identified 212 journals from 83 publishers, and the total number of published articles was 12,871. The reported location of most publishers was in the United States. In 43% of cases (37/84), the reported location was judged as "unreliable" after being checked using the 3-dimensional view in Google Maps. Six journals were indexed in PubMed. Although 6 journals were declared to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, none were actually registered. The median article processing charge was 634.5 US dollars (interquartile range, 275-1005 US dollars). Several journals reported false indexing/registration in the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors registries and Google Scholar. Only 32% (67/212) reported the name of the editor-in-chief. Rules for ethics/scientific misconduct were reported in only 24% of cases (50/212). In conclusion, potential or probable predatory open-access publishers and journals are widely present in the broad field of anesthesiology and related specialties. Researchers should carefully check journals' reported information, including location, editorial board, indexing, and rules for ethics when submitting their manuscripts to open-access journals.

Knowledge and Influence of Predatory Journals in Dermatology: A Pan-Austrian Survey.

The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and influence of predatory journals in the field of dermatology in Austria. A total of 286 physicians (50.5% men) completed a questionnaire. The vast majority of subjects read scientific articles (n = 281, 98.3%) and took them into consideration in their clinical decision-making (n = 271, 98.5% of participants that regularly read scientific literature). Open access was known by 161 (56.3%), predatory journals by 84 (29.4%), and the Beall's list by 19 physicians (6.7%). A total of 117 participants (40.9%) had been challenged by patients with results from the scientific literature, including 9 predatory papers. Participants who knew of predatory journals had a higher level of education as well as scientific experience, and were more familiar with the open-access system (p < 0.001). These results indicate that the majority of dermatologists are not familiar with predatory journals. This is particularly the case for physicians in training and in the early stages of their career.

Caveat Emptor: Predatory Publishers, Rogue Journals, and the Potential Corruption of Addiction Science.

The name predatory publisher has been applied by academic librarian Jeffrey Beall to describe an open-access, scholarly publishing business model in which publication fees are charged to authors without providing the editorial judgment, peer-review process, and publishing services associated with more established journals. In the addiction field, as many as 20 journal titles now operate according to this model, and most of their editors are either nonexistent or impossible to contact. Although predatory publishing should not be equated with open access, this article argues that predatory publishers are diluting scientific quality in the addiction field by taking advantage of the open-access movement. Beyond the damage done to the reputations of naive authors and figurehead editorial board members, there is a cascade of effects resulting from the shabby publication process itself. If the addiction field is to be protected from predatory publishers, all sectors need to be involved. Declarations of "buyer beware" and "the emperor has no clothes" are just the first steps in a process of preventing further damage to the integrity of addiction science. As described in this article, concerted action will be required by authors, editors, and professional societies.

Identification of ethics committees based on authors' disclosures: cross-sectional study of articles published in the European Journal of Anaesthesiology and a survey of ethics committees.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, the European Journal of Anaesthesiology has required the reporting of five items concerning ethical approval in articles describing human research: ethics committee's name and address, chairperson's name, study's protocol number and approval date. We aimed to assess whether this requirement has helped to identify and to contact the referenced ethics committees. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analysed articles requiring ethical approval, according to the Swiss federal law for human research and published in the European Journal of Anaesthesiology in 2011. Ethics committees were searched through our institutional Internet access based on information provided in the articles. The last search was performed in November 2015. Numbers (%) of items reported, of ethics committees identified, and of those that confirmed having provided ethical approval are reported. RESULTS: Of 76 articles requiring ethical approval, 74 (97%) declared it. Ethics committees' names and addresses were mentioned in 63/74 (85%), protocol numbers in 51/74 (69%), approval dates in 48/74 (65%), and chairpersons' names in 45/74 (61%). We could identify 44/74 (59%) committees; 36/74 (49%) answered our inquiry and 24/74 (32%) confirmed their role. Thirty-four of 74 articles (46%) reported all five items; in 25/34 (74%), we were able to identify an ethics committee, 18/34 (53%) answered our inquiry, and 15/34 (44%) confirmed their role. Forty of 74 articles (54%) reported ≤4 items; in 19/40 (48%), we were able to identify an ethics committee, 18/40 (45%) answered our inquiry, and 9/40 (23%) confirmed their role. Reporting five items significantly increased identification of ethics committees (p = 0.023) and their confirmation of ethical approval (p = 0.048). Twelve of 74 ethics committees (16%) were unable to confirm their role in approving the study. CONCLUSIONS: Even when details concerning ethical approval were reported in these studies of human research, we were unable to identify almost half of the ethics committees concerned. The reporting of five items, compared with reporting ≤4, was associated with facilitated identification of ethics committees, and increased the likelihood that they would be able to confirm the study's approval. Future research should identify which information facilitates identification of, and contact with, ethics committees.