Kojima Takako, Green Joseph, Barron J Patrick
Department of International Medical Communications, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
BMJ Open. 2015 Aug 26;5(8):e007957. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007957.
Medical journals in Japan generally have appropriate policies regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI). However, COI management depends on the staff members of each journal's editorial secretariat. This study's objectives were to find out (A) whether COI disclosure and the journal's role in it are clearly understood by the journal's secretariat staff, (B) how much experience the editorial secretariat has in actually handling issues related to disclosure and (C) what kind of help or support they need.
In January 2014, questionnaires were sent to the editorial secretariats of journal-publishing societies belonging to the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS).
The response rate was 100%, and the respondents represented 121 journals published by the 118 JAMS member societies (at the time of the survey).
Information was collected on the history of COI policies and on how those policies were implemented. At the end of the questionnaire, there was an open-ended call for comments.
Compulsory COI disclosure began between 2010 and 2013 for 60.3% of the journals (73/121). Handling of COI issues was not uniform: 17.4% (21/121) of respondents do not pursue cases of dubious disclosure, and 47.9% (58/121) do not require COI disclosures from editorial board members. Very few of the editorial secretariats had clearly-stated consequences for violations of COI-disclosure policy (33/121, 27.3%), and only 28.9% offered COI education (35/121). Respondents' comments indicated that uniform, easily-searchable guidance regarding COI policies and implementation would be welcome.
Although commitment is widespread, policy implementation is inconsistent and COI experience is lacking. Clear, easy-to-use guidelines are desired by many societies. The JAMS is to be commended for supporting this country-wide investigation; other countries and regions are encouraged to perform similar investigations to respond to needs regarding COI management.
日本的医学期刊通常在利益冲突（COI）披露方面有适当的政策。然而，COI管理取决于各期刊编辑秘书处的工作人员。本研究的目的是了解：（A）期刊秘书处工作人员是否清楚理解COI披露及其在其中的作用；（B）编辑秘书处在实际处理与披露相关问题方面有多少经验；（C）他们需要何种帮助或支持。
2014年1月，向日本医学科学协会（JAMS）所属期刊出版协会的编辑秘书处发送了问卷。
回复率为100%，受访者代表118个JAMS成员协会（调查时）出版的121种期刊。
收集了关于COI政策历史以及这些政策如何实施的信息。在问卷末尾，有一个征求意见的开放式问题。
60.3%（73/121）的期刊在2010年至2013年期间开始强制进行COI披露。COI问题的处理并不统一：17.4%（21/121）的受访者不追究可疑披露的情况，47.9%（58/121）的受访者不要求编辑委员会成员进行COI披露。很少有编辑秘书处明确规定违反COI披露政策的后果（33/），只有28.9%提供COI教育（35/121）。受访者的意见表明，关于COI政策和实施的统一、易于查找的指南将受到欢迎。
虽然普遍有承诺，但政策实施不一致且缺乏COI经验。许多协会希望有清晰、易于使用的指南。JAMS支持这项全国性调查值得称赞；鼓励其他国家和地区进行类似调查，以满足COI管理方面的需求。
