Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA].
BMJ. 2019 Nov 6;367:l5896. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5896.
To assess the effect of disclosing authors' conflict of interest declarations to peer reviewers at a medical journal.
Randomized controlled trial.
Manuscript review process at the PARTICIPANTS: Reviewers (n=838) who reviewed manuscripts submitted between 2 June 2014 and 23 January 2018 inclusive (n=1480 manuscripts).
Reviewers were randomized to either receive (treatment) or not receive (control) authors' full International Committee of Medical Journal Editors format conflict of interest disclosures before reviewing manuscripts. Reviewers rated the manuscripts as usual on eight quality ratings and were then surveyed to obtain "counterfactual scores"-that is, the scores they believed they would have given had they been assigned to the opposite arm-as well as attitudes toward conflicts of interest.
Overall quality score that reviewers assigned to the manuscript on submitting their review (1 to 5 scale). Secondary outcomes were scores the reviewers submitted for the seven more specific quality ratings and counterfactual scores elicited in the follow-up survey.
Providing authors' conflict of interest disclosures did not affect reviewers' mean ratings of manuscript quality (M=2.70 (SD 1.11) out of 5; M=2.74 (1.13) out of 5; mean difference 0.04, 95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.14), even for manuscripts with disclosed conflicts (M= 2.85 (1.12) out of 5; M=2.96 (1.16) out of 5; mean difference 0.11, -0.05 to 0.26). Similarly, no effect of the treatment was seen on any of the other seven quality ratings that the reviewers assigned. Reviewers acknowledged conflicts of interest as an important matter and believed that they could correct for them when they were disclosed. However, their counterfactual scores did not differ from actual scores (M=2.69; M=2.67; difference in means 0.02, 0.01 to 0.02). When conflicts were reported, a comparison of different source types (for example, government, for-profit corporation) found no difference in effect.
Current ethical standards require disclosure of conflicts of interest for all scientific reports. As currently implemented, this practice had no effect on any quality ratings of real manuscripts being evaluated for publication by real peer reviewers.
评估向医学期刊的同行评审员披露作者利益冲突声明的效果。
随机对照试验。
手稿审查过程在……中进行
评审员（n=838），他们审查了 2014 年 6 月 2 日至 2018 年 1 月 23 日之间提交的手稿（n=1480 份手稿）。
评审员被随机分配接受（治疗）或不接受（对照）作者的完整国际医学期刊编辑委员会格式利益冲突披露，然后再审查手稿。评审员按照八项质量评分标准对稿件进行了通常的评分，然后进行了调查以获得“反事实评分”-即他们认为如果被分配到相反的臂中他们会给出的评分-以及对利益冲突的态度。
评审员提交审查时对手稿的整体质量评分（1 到 5 分制）。次要结果是评审员提交的七个更具体的质量评分以及后续调查中得出的反事实评分。
提供作者的利益冲突披露并没有影响评审员对手稿质量的平均评分（平均 2.70（1.11）分；平均 2.74（1.13）分；平均差异 0.04，95%置信区间-0.05 至 0.14），即使是对于披露冲突的手稿也是如此（平均 2.85（1.12）分；平均 2.96（1.16）分；平均差异 0.11，-0.05 至 0.26）。同样，处理对评审员分配的其他七个质量评分也没有影响。评审员承认利益冲突是一个重要问题，并认为在披露时可以纠正这些问题。然而，他们的反事实评分与实际评分没有差异（平均 2.69；平均 2.67；差异为 0.02，0.01 至 0.02）。当报告冲突时，对不同来源类型（例如政府，营利性公司）的比较发现没有效果差异。
目前的伦理标准要求对所有科学报告披露利益冲突。按照目前的实施情况，这种做法对正在进行出版评估的真实手稿的任何质量评分都没有影响。
Zotero 插件
