Eisner Manuel, Humphreys David K, Wilson Philip, Gardner Frances
Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 25;10(11):e0142803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142803. eCollection 2015.
Academic journals increasingly request a full disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI). The Committee for Publication Ethics provides editors with guidance about the course of action in the case of suspected non-disclosure. No prior study has examined the extent to which journal articles on psychosocial interventions disclose CoI, and how journal editors process requests to examine suspected undisclosed CoI. Four internationally disseminated psychosocial interventions were examined. 136 articles related to an intervention, co-authored by intervention developers and published in health sciences journals were retrieved as requiring a CoI statement. Two editors refused consent to be included in the study. COI disclosures and editor responses were coded for 134 articles. Overall, 92/134 (71%) of all articles were found to have absent, incomplete or partly misleading CoI disclosures. Disclosure rates for the four programs varied significantly between 11% and 73%. Journal editors were contacted about 92 published articles with no CoI disclosure or a disclosure that was considered problematic. In 65/92 (71%) of all cases the editors published an 'erratum' or 'corrigendum'. In 16 of these cases the journal had mishandled a submitted disclosure. The most frequent reason for non-publication of an erratum was that the journal had no disclosure policy at the time of the publication (16 cases). Consumers of research on psychosocial interventions published in peer-reviewed journals cannot currently assume that CoI disclosures are adequate and complete. More efforts are needed to achieve transparency.
学术期刊越来越要求全面披露财务利益冲突(CoI)。出版伦理委员会为编辑提供了在怀疑未披露情况下的行动指南。此前尚无研究考察过关于社会心理干预的期刊文章在多大程度上披露了利益冲突,以及期刊编辑如何处理检查可疑未披露利益冲突的请求。对四项在国际上传播的社会心理干预进行了考察。检索到136篇与一项干预相关、由干预开发者共同撰写并发表在健康科学期刊上且要求提供利益冲突声明的文章。两名编辑拒绝同意参与该研究。对134篇文章的利益冲突披露和编辑回复进行了编码。总体而言,发现所有文章中有92/134(71%)存在利益冲突披露缺失、不完整或部分误导性的情况。四个项目的披露率在11%至73%之间有显著差异。就92篇未进行利益冲突披露或披露被认为有问题的已发表文章联系了期刊编辑。在所有案例中,65/92(71%)的编辑发表了“勘误”或“更正”。在其中16个案例中,期刊对提交的披露处理不当。未发表勘误的最常见原因是期刊在发表时没有披露政策(16个案例)。目前,在同行评审期刊上发表的社会心理干预研究的读者不能假定利益冲突披露是充分和完整的。需要做出更多努力来实现透明度。