Schulman K, Sulmasy D P, Roney D
Division of General Internal Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007.
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):154-6.
To evaluate aspects of the publication process that may affect the quality of the literature in clinical economics and biomedical ethics, and to learn about the policies of medical journals regarding disclosure of relationships between investigators and research sponsors.
Mail survey.
Editors in chief of 15 major medical journals.
Twelve editors responded to the survey. Ten reported having statisticians among their editors, while only two had health economists and none had ethicists. Clinicians in the specialty field were almost always the primary reviewers of submissions, while methodologists (statisticians, health economists, or ethicists) were involved less frequently. Journals reported little knowledge of the training of their reviewers in these fields. While nine journals requested disclosure of the financial relationship between author and sponsor, only one inquired whether the sponsor's written approval was required prior to manuscript submission, and only one knew whether there was an independent steering committee for the study.
These findings suggest that the peer review process can be strengthened to improve the quality of the medical literature in clinical economics and biomedical ethics. Journal editors also need to better understand the terms of research sponsorship agreements.
评估可能影响临床经济学和生物医学伦理学文献质量的出版流程方面,并了解医学期刊关于披露研究者与研究资助者之间关系的政策。
邮寄调查。
15种主要医学期刊的主编。
12位编辑回复了调查。10位报告其编辑中有统计学家,而只有2位有卫生经济学家,没有一位有伦理学家。专业领域的临床医生几乎总是稿件的主要评审者,而方法学家(统计学家、卫生经济学家或伦理学家)参与评审的频率较低。期刊表示对其评审者在这些领域的培训了解甚少。虽然9种期刊要求披露作者与资助者之间的财务关系,但只有1种询问在稿件提交前是否需要资助者的书面批准,只有1种知道该研究是否有独立的指导委员会。
这些发现表明,可以加强同行评审过程以提高临床经济学和生物医学伦理学医学文献的质量。期刊编辑还需要更好地理解研究资助协议的条款。