Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA.
Account Res. 2009;16(5):235-53. doi: 10.1080/08989620903190273.
Basic science and medical journals are increasingly requiring authors to disclose financial interests they have in the subject matter of contributed articles and letters. A comparison of journal conflict-of-interest (COI) policies can provide insight into published reports of low compliance rates and inconsistencies in disclosures by the same author found in different journals. The objective of this article is to compare the criteria, specificity, and scope of COI polices in toxicology and medical journals. We studied the COI policies of 47 toxicology and 180 medical journals catalogued in Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory for criteria of competing interests, types of submissions covered, monetary or time thresholds for reporting, and penalties for violations. Indicators were constructed for rating policy specificity, author discretion, and policy scope. Written COI policies were found in 87% if the toxicology and 84% of the medical journals; 15% and 28% of the toxicology and medical journals, respectively, were explicit about the type of content covered by the policy; 20% and 29%, respectively, included a monetary threshold for reporting purposes; the level of author discretion for reporting COIs was found to be high in 46% of the toxicology and 41% of the medical journals respectively. The level of specificity for more than 75% of the written journal COI policies for both fields was minimal or practically nil, and the scope of more than 80% of the policies was minimal to narrow. Lack of specificity, high author discretion, and restricted scope were found to be prevalent among COI policies of toxicology and medical journals.
基础科学和医学期刊越来越要求作者披露他们在投稿文章和信件主题方面的财务利益。比较期刊利益冲突 (COI) 政策可以深入了解发表的报告中低合规率和同一作者在不同期刊中的披露不一致的情况。本文的目的是比较毒理学和医学期刊 COI 政策的标准、特异性和范围。我们研究了乌尔里希国际期刊目录中列出的 47 种毒理学和 180 种医学期刊的 COI 政策,以了解竞争利益标准、涵盖的投稿类型、报告的货币或时间阈值以及违规处罚。为了评价政策特异性、作者酌处权和政策范围,构建了指标。有书面 COI 政策的毒理学和医学期刊分别占 87%和 84%;分别有 15%和 28%的毒理学和医学期刊明确规定了政策涵盖的内容类型;分别有 20%和 29%的期刊包括报告目的的货币阈值;分别有 46%和 41%的毒理学和医学期刊的作者报告 COI 的酌处权水平较高。这两个领域的书面期刊 COI 政策中,超过 75%的政策特异性最小或几乎为零,超过 80%的政策范围最小到狭窄。毒理学和医学期刊的 COI 政策普遍存在特异性差、作者酌处权高和范围受限的问题。