PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (309890)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal 
Background
To assess how authors would describe their contribution to the submitted manuscript without reference to or requirement to satisfy authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), we analyzed responses of authors to an open-ended question “Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?”.
Methods
Responses of authors (n=1425) who submitted their manuscripts (n=345) to the Croatian Medical Journal, an international general medical journal, from March 2009 until July 2010 were transcribed and matched to ICMJE criteria. Statements that could not be matched were separately categorized. Responses according to the number of authors or their byline position on the manuscript were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U test and Moses test of extreme reactions.
Results
The number of authors per manuscript ranged from 1 to 26 (median=4, IQR=3-6), with the median of 2 contributions per author (IQR=2-3). Authors’ responses could be matched to the ICMJE criteria in 1116 (87.0%) cases. Among these, only 15.6% clearly declared contributions from all 3 ICMJE criteria; however, if signing of the authorship form was taken as the fulfillment of the third ICMJE criterion, overall fraction of deserving authorship was 54.2%. Non-ICMJE contributions were declared by 98 (7.6%) authors whose other contributions could be matched to ICMJE criteria, and by 116 (13.0%) authors whose contributions could not be matched to ICMJE criteria. The most frequently reported non-ICMJE contribution was literature review. Authors on manuscripts with more than 8 authors declared more contributions than those on manuscript with 8 or fewer authors: median 2, IQR 1–4, vs. median 2, IQR 1–3, respectively (Mann Whitney U test, p=0.001; Moses Test of Extreme Reactions, p<0.001). Almost a third of single authors (n=9; 31.0%) reported contributions that could not be matched to any ICMJE criterion.
Conclusions
In cases of multi-author collaborative efforts but not in manuscripts with fewer authors open-ended authorship declaration without instructions on ICMJE criteria elicited responses from authors that were similar to responses when ICMJE criteria were explicitly required. Current authorship criteria and the practice of contribution declaration should be revised in order to capture deserving authorship in biomedical research.
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-189
PMCID: PMC3552823  PMID: 23256648
Authorship; Guideline adherence; Contribution disclosure form; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); Editorial policies; Croatia
2.  Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials 
PLoS Medicine  2007;4(1):e19.
Background
Ghost authorship, the failure to name, as an author, an individual who has made substantial contributions to an article, may result in lack of accountability. The prevalence and nature of ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials is not known.
Methods and Findings
We conducted a cohort study comparing protocols and corresponding publications for industry-initiated trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in 1994–1995. We defined ghost authorship as present if individuals who wrote the trial protocol, performed the statistical analyses, or wrote the manuscript, were not listed as authors of the publication, or as members of a study group or writing committee, or in an acknowledgment. We identified 44 industry-initiated trials. We did not find any trial protocol or publication that stated explicitly that the clinical study report or the manuscript was to be written or was written by the clinical investigators, and none of the protocols stated that clinical investigators were to be involved with data analysis. We found evidence of ghost authorship for 33 trials (75%; 95% confidence interval 60%–87%). The prevalence of ghost authorship was increased to 91% (40 of 44 articles; 95% confidence interval 78%–98%) when we included cases where a person qualifying for authorship was acknowledged rather than appearing as an author. In 31 trials, the ghost authors we identified were statisticians. It is likely that we have overlooked some ghost authors, as we had very limited information to identify the possible omission of other individuals who would have qualified as authors.
Conclusions
Ghost authorship in industry-initiated trials is very common. Its prevalence could be considerably reduced, and transparency improved, if existing guidelines were followed, and if protocols were publicly available.
Of 44 industry-initiated trials, there was evidence of ghost authorship in 33, increasing to 40 when a person qualifying for authorship was acknowledged rather than appearing as an author.
Editors' Summary
Background.
Original scientific findings are usually published in the form of a “paper”, whether it is actually distributed on paper, or circulated via the internet, as this one is. Papers are normally prepared by a group of researchers who did the research and are then listed at the top of the article. These authors therefore take responsibility for the integrity of the results and interpretation of them. However, many people are worried that sometimes the author list on the paper does not tell the true story of who was involved. In particular, for clinical research, case histories and previous research has suggested that “ghost authorship” is commonplace. Ghost authors are people who were involved in some way in the research study, or writing the paper, but who have been left off the final author list. This might happen because the study “looks” more credible if the true authors (for example, company employees or freelance medical writers) are not revealed. This practice might hide competing interests that readers should be aware of, and has therefore been condemned by academics, groups of editors, and some pharmaceutical companies.
Why Was This Study Done?
This group of researchers wanted to get an idea of how often ghost authorship happened in medical research done by companies. Previous studies looking into this used surveys, whereby the researchers would write to one author on each of a group of papers to ask whether anyone else had been involved in the work but who was not listed on the paper. These sorts of studies typically underestimate the rate of ghost authorship, because the main author might not want to admit what had been going on. However, the researchers here managed to get access to trial protocols (documents setting out the plans for future research studies), which gave them a way to investigate ghost authorship.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
In order to investigate the frequency and type of ghost authorship, these researchers identified every trial which was approved between 1994 and 1995 by the ethics committees of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in Denmark. Then they winnowed this group down to include only the trials that were sponsored by industry (pharmaceutical companies and others), and only those trials that were finished and published. The protocols for each trial were obtained from the ethics committees and the researchers then matched up each protocol with its corresponding paper. Then, they compared names which appeared in the protocol against names appearing on the eventual paper, either on the author list or acknowledged elsewhere in the paper as being involved. The researchers ended up studying 44 trials. For 31 of these (75% of them) they found some evidence of ghost authorship, in that people were identified as having written the protocol or who had been involved in doing statistical analyses or writing the manuscript, but did not end up listed in the manuscript. If the definition of authorship was made narrower, and “ghost authorship” included people qualifying for authorship who were mentioned in the acknowledgements but not the author list, the researchers' estimate went up to 91%, that is 40 of the 44 trials. For most of the trials with missing authors, the ghost was a statistician (the person who analyzes the trial data).
What Do These Findings Mean?
In this study, the researchers found that ghost authorship was very common in papers published in medical journals (this study covered a broad range of peer-reviewed journals in many medical disciplines). The method used in this paper seems more reliable than using surveys to work out how often ghost authorship happens. The researchers aimed to define authorship using the policies set out by a group called the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the findings here suggest that the ICMJE's standards for authorship are very often ignored. This means that people who read the published paper cannot always accurately judge or trust the information presented within it, and competing interests may be hidden. The researchers here suggest that protocols should be made publicly available so that everyone can see what trials are planned and who is involved in conducting them. The findings also suggest that journals should not only list the authors of each paper but describe what each author has done, so that the published information accurately reflects what has been carried out.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019.
Read the Perspective by Liz Wager, which discusses these findings in more depth
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is a group of general medical journal editors who have produced general guidelines for biomedical manuscripts; their definition of authorship is also described
The Committee on Publication Ethics is a forum for editors of peer-reviewed journals to discuss issues related to the integrity of the scientific record; the Web site lists anonymized problems and the committee's advice, not just regarding authorship, but other types of problems as well
Good Publication Practice for Pharmaceutical Companies outlines common standards for publication of industry-sponsored medical research, and some pharmaceutical companies have agreed to these
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019
PMCID: PMC1769411  PMID: 17227134
3.  A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals 
PeerJ  2014;2:e365.
Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future.
Methods. Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who recently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE Open.
Results. The response rate ranged from 26% for BMJ Open to 47% for SAGE Open. The authors were international, largely academics who had recently published in both subscription and Open Access (OA) journals. Across journals about 25% of the articles were preliminary findings and just under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLOS journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were rejected by the editor’s journals to a megajournal published by the same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process were important factors across all four journals. Impact factor was important for PLOS ONE authors but less so for BMJ Open authors, which also has an impact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputation of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. About half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used grant funding for publishing charges while only about 10% of SAGE Open used grant funding for publication charges. Around 60% of SAGE Open and 32% of PeerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleased with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the same or similar journal in the future.
Conclusions. Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity.
doi:10.7717/peerj.365
PMCID: PMC4006221  PMID: 24795855
Open access; Megajournals; Survey; Authors
4.  Improving quality in general practice: qualitative case study of barriers faced by health authorities 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1999;319(7203):164-167.
Objectives
To identify and assess the barriers that health authorities face as they manage quality improvements in general practice in the context of the NHS reforms.
Design
Qualitative case study.
Setting
Three UK health authorities: a rural health authority in the south west, a deprived inner city health authority in the north east, and an affluent suburban health authority in the south east.
Participants
Senior and junior managers.
Main outcome measures
Structure of strategic and organisational management, and barriers to the leadership and management of quality improvement in general practice.
Results
Seven barriers were identified: absence of an explicit strategic plan for general practice, competing priorities for attention of the health authority, sensitivity of health professionals, lack of information due to poor quality of clinical data, lack of authority to implement change, unclear roles and responsibilities of managers within the organisations, and isolation from other authorities or organisations facing similar challenges.
Conclusions
The health authorities faced significant barriers that would impede their ability to fulfil their responsibilities in the new NHS and that would reduce their capacity to contribute to quality improvements in general practice.
Key messages Health authorities fail to take a strategic approach to improving quality in general practice Doctors and health authority managers do not work sufficiently closely together to improve the quality of general practice Health authority managers seem to lack the authority and organisational structure to maximise the role in general practice expected of them in the NHS reforms
PMCID: PMC28169  PMID: 10406756
5.  Hygiene inspections on passenger ships in Europe - an overview 
BMC Public Health  2010;10:122.
Background
Hygiene inspections on passenger ships are important for the prevention of communicable diseases. The European Union (EU) countries conduct hygiene inspections on passenger ships in order to ensure that appropriate measures have been taken to eliminate potential sources of contamination which could lead to the spread of communicable diseases. This study was implemented within the framework of the EU SHIPSAN project and it investigates the legislation applied and practices of hygiene inspections of passenger ships in the EU Member States (MS) and European Free Trade Association countries.
Methods
Two questionnaires were composed and disseminated to 28 countries. A total of 92 questionnaires were completed by competent authorities responsible for hygiene inspections (n = 48) and the creation of legislation (n = 44); response rates were 96%, and 75.9%, respectively.
Results
Out of the 48 responding authorities responsible for hygiene inspections, a routine programme was used by 19 (39.6%) of these to conduct inspections of ships on national voyages and by 26 (54.2%) for ships on international voyages. Standardised inspection forms are used by 59.1% of the authorities. A scoring inspection system is applied by five (11.6%) of the 43 responding authorities. Environmental sampling is conducted by 84.1% of the authorities (37 out of 44). The inspection results are collected and analysed by 54.5% (24 out of 44) of the authorities, while 9 authorities (20.5%) declared that they publish the results. Inspections are conducted during outbreak investigations by 75% and 70.8% of the authorities, on ships on national and international voyages, respectively. A total of 31 (64.6%) and 39 (81.3%) authorities conducted inspections during complaint investigations on ships on international and on national voyages, respectively. Port-to-port communication between the national port authorities was reported by 35.4% (17 out of 48) of the responding authorities and 20.8% (10 out of 48) of the port authorities of other countries.
Conclusion
This study revealed a diversity of approaches and practices in the conduct of inspections, differences in the qualifications/knowledge/experience of inspectors, the legislation applied during inspections, and the lack of communication and training among many EU countries. An integrated European inspection programme involving competent expert inspectors in each EU Member States and special training for ship hygiene delivered to crew members and inspectors would help to minimize the risk of communicable diseases. Common inspection tools at a European level for hygiene inspection practices and port-to-port communication are needed.
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-122
PMCID: PMC2847977  PMID: 20219097
6.  Authors' opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment 
BMC Medical Education  2010;10:21.
Background
In the past 50 years there has been a substantial increase in the volume of published research and in the number of authors per scientific publication. There is also significant pressure exerted on researchers to produce publications. Thus, the purpose of this study was to survey corresponding authors in published medical journals to determine their opinion on publication impact in relation to performance review and promotion.
Methods
Cross-sectional survey of corresponding authors of original research articles published in June 2007 among 72 medical journals. Measurement outcomes included the number of publications, number of authors, authorship order and journal impact factor in relation to performance review and promotion.
Results
Of 687 surveys, 478 were analyzed (response rate 69.6%). Corresponding authors self-reported that number of publications (78.7%), journal impact factor (67.8%) and being the first author (75.9%) were most influential for their annual performance review and assessment. Only 17.6% of authors reported that the number of authors on a manuscript was important criteria for performance review and assessment. A higher percentage of Asian authors reported that the number of authors was key to performance review and promotion (41.4% versus 7.8 to 22.2%). compared to authors from other countries.
Conclusions
The number of publications, authorship order and journal impact factor were important factors for performance reviews and promotion at academic and non-academic institutes. The number of authors was not identified as important criteria. These factors may be contributing to the increase in the number of authors per publication.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-21
PMCID: PMC2842280  PMID: 20214826
7.  Do urology journals enforce trial registration? A cross-sectional study of published trials 
BMJ Open  2011;1(2):e000430.
Objectives
(1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered.
Design
Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials.
Setting
Journals publishing in the field of urology.
Participants
First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in ‘Journal Citation Reports 2009’ (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group.
Intervention
MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01–03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information.
Outcome measures
Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered.
Results
Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04).
Conclusions
The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.
Article summary
Article focus
Trial registration can increase scientific transparency, but its implementation in specialty fields such as urology is unclear.
To assess the endorsement of trial registration in the author instructions of urology-related journals.
To assess whether randomised controlled trials in the field were effectively registered.
Key messages
A statement of trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered randomised controlled trials.
Journals with high impact factors were more likely to mention trial registration.
We suggest, though, that ensuring trial registration is not the responsibility only of the editors. Medical scientists should realise that trial registration is necessary to contribute to transparency in research.
Strength and limitations of this study
Two authors independently assessed information regarding editorial advice about trial registration and identified the randomised controlled trials.
Potential bias occurred if registered randomised controlled trials were reported without giving a registration number and we could not identify them in the meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform).
Results might not be representative of the uro-nephrological field as a whole and reported figures may overestimate compliance with trial registration.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000430
PMCID: PMC3236819  PMID: 22146890
8.  Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions 
Background
The contribution disclosure forms used by medical journals to assess and confirm authorship are surveys of self-reported behaviour that follow the cognitive rules of psychometric instruments. We sought to analyze how autobiographical memory, defined as memory for events and issues related to oneself, affected the reliability of contribution forms for the judging of authorship of research articles.
Methods
We conducted a prospective study, which ultimately included 919 authors of 201 articles submitted to a general medical journal from July 2001 through December 2002. A authorship disclosure form with a checklist of 11 possible contribution choices for all authors was sent first to each article's corresponding author, who was asked to fill it out for all authors. A blank form was then sent to each author individually to disclose his or her own contribution to that article. The main outcome measure was test– retest differences between the corresponding authors' self-declarations, expressed in percent as the gross difference rate (GDR) for each article.
Results
More than two-thirds of the corresponding authors (69.7%) differed in at least 1 contribution choice between the 2 disclosure statements made about their own contributions. The reliability of their answers was low to moderate (GDRs > 10%), especially for contributions on the provision of study materials or patients or final approval of the article (GDR 22.9%), guarantor of the study (GDR 20.9%) and drafting of the manuscript (GDR 20.4%). As a proxy for their coauthors' contributions, corresponding authors also differed from them in the perception of noncorresponding authors' contributions, disagreeing in 69.4% of cases. Of the 718 noncorresponding authors, 204 (28.4%) met all the criteria for authorship set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors according to the statement given by the corresponding author. When they described their own contributions, this prevalence increased to 40.5%.
Interpretation
Psychological factors such as autobiographical memory may confound contribution disclosures as an evaluation tool for authorship on scientific articles and affect responsible authorship and publication practices.
doi:10.1503/cmaj.060687
PMCID: PMC1764586  PMID: 17200389
9.  Empirical Study of Data Sharing by Authors Publishing in PLoS Journals 
PLoS ONE  2009;4(9):e7078.
Background
Many journals now require authors share their data with other investigators, either by depositing the data in a public repository or making it freely available upon request. These policies are explicit, but remain largely untested. We sought to determine how well authors comply with such policies by requesting data from authors who had published in one of two journals with clear data sharing policies.
Methods and Findings
We requested data from ten investigators who had published in either PLoS Medicine or PLoS Clinical Trials. All responses were carefully documented. In the event that we were refused data, we reminded authors of the journal's data sharing guidelines. If we did not receive a response to our initial request, a second request was made. Following the ten requests for raw data, three investigators did not respond, four authors responded and refused to share their data, two email addresses were no longer valid, and one author requested further details. A reminder of PLoS's explicit requirement that authors share data did not change the reply from the four authors who initially refused. Only one author sent an original data set.
Conclusions
We received only one of ten raw data sets requested. This suggests that journal policies requiring data sharing do not lead to authors making their data sets available to independent investigators.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007078
PMCID: PMC2739314  PMID: 19763261
10.  Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey 
Objectives To assess the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in six leading general medical journals in 2008 and compare this with the prevalence reported by authors of articles published in 1996.
Design Cross sectional survey using a web based questionnaire.
Setting International survey of journal authors.
Participants Sample of corresponding authors of 896 research articles, review articles, and editorial/opinion articles published in six general medical journals with high impact factors in 2008: Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Nature Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine.
Main outcome measures Self reported compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for all authors on the selected articles.
Results A total of 630/896 (70.3%) corresponding authors responded to the survey. The prevalence of articles with honorary authorship or ghost authorship, or both, was 21.0% (95% CI 18.0% to 24.3%), a decrease from 29.2% reported in 1996 (P=0.004). Based on 545 responses on honorary authorship, 96 articles (17.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 21.0%)) had honorary authors (range by journal 12.2% to 29.3%), a non-significant change from 1996 (19.3%; P=0.439). Based on 622 responses on ghost authorship, 49 articles (7.9% (6.0% to 10.3%)) had ghost authors (range by journal 2.1% to 11.0%), a significant decline from 1996 (11.5%; P=0.023). The prevalence of honorary authorship was 25.0% in original research reports, 15.0% in reviews, and 11.2% in editorials, whereas the prevalence of ghost authorship was 11.9% in research articles, 6.0% in reviews, and 5.3% in editorials.
Conclusions Evidence of honorary and ghost authorship in 21% of articles published in major medical journals in 2008 suggests that increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors, and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability, and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication.
doi:10.1136/bmj.d6128
PMCID: PMC3202014  PMID: 22028479
11.  Promoting audit in primary care: roles and relationships of medical audit advisory groups and their managers. 
Quality in Health Care  1995;4(3):166-173.
OBJECTIVES--To investigate perceptions of family health service authorities and medical audit advisory groups of advisory groups' involvement in clinical audit and wider quality issues; communication with the authorities; and manager satisfaction. DESIGN--National postal questionnaire survey in 1994. SETTING--All family health services authority districts in England and Wales. SUBJECTS--Chief executives or other responsible authority officers and advisory group chairpersons in each district. MAIN MEASURES--Priorities of advisory group and authority for audit; involvement of advisory group in wider quality issues; communication of information to, and contacts with, the authority and its involvement in planning the future work of the advisory group; and authorities' satisfaction. RESULTS--Both groups' views about audit were similar and broadly consistent with current policy. Advisory group involvement in wider quality issues was extensive, and the majority of both groups thought this appropriate. Much of the information about their activities collected by advisory groups was not passed on to the authority. The most frequent contact between the two groups was the advisory group's annual report, but formal personal contact was the most valued. Most authority respondents thought their views had been recognised in the advisory group's planning of future work; only a small minority were not satisfied with their advisory groups. Dissatisfied respondents received less information from their advisory groups, had less contact with them, and thought they had less input into their plans. There was some evidence that advisory groups in the "dissatisfied districts" were less involved in clinical audit and with their authorities in wider quality issues. CONCLUSIONS--Most advisory groups are developing their activities in clinical audit and have expanded their scope of work. The quality and availability of information about progress with audit is a cause for concern to both groups.
PMCID: PMC1055311  PMID: 10161268
12.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals 
Journal of General Internal Medicine  2006;21(12):1248-1252.
OBJECTIVE
We undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available.
METHODS
We performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times.
RESULTS
The response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request.
CONCLUSION
Many more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published; the extent to which such “secret disclosure” may impact the integrity of the journal or the published work is not known.
doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00598.x
PMCID: PMC1924760  PMID: 17105524
conflict of interest; disclosure; peer-review; editorial policy
13.  Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews 
Background
Despite the growing reputation and subject coverage of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, many systematic reviews continue to be published solely in paper-based health care journals. This study was designed to determine why authors choose to publish their systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration and if they might be interested in converting their reviews to Cochrane format for publication in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Methods
Cross-sectional survey of Australian primary authors of systematic reviews not published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness.
Results
We identified 88 systematic reviews from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness with an Australian as the primary author. We surveyed 52 authors for whom valid contact information was available. The response rate was 88 per cent (46/52). Ten authors replied without completing the survey, leaving 36 valid surveys for analysis. The most frequently cited reasons for not undertaking a Cochrane review were: lack of time (78%), the need to undergo specific Cochrane training (46%), unwillingness to update reviews (36%), difficulties with the Cochrane process (26%) and the review topic already registered with the Cochrane Collaboration (21%). (Percentages based on completed responses to individual questions.) Nearly half the respondents would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Dedicated time emerged as the most important factor in facilitating the potential conversion process. Other factors included navigating the Cochrane system, assistance with updating and financial support. Eighty-six per cent were willing to have their review converted to Cochrane format by another author.
Conclusion
Time required to complete a Cochrane review and the need for specific training are the primary reasons why some authors publish systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration. Encouragingly, almost half of the authors would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Based on the current number of reviews in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, this could result in more than 700 additional Cochrane reviews. Ways of supporting these authors and how to provide dedicated time to convert systematic reviews needs further consideration.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-3-2
PMCID: PMC149345  PMID: 12533194
14.  The gender imbalance in academic medicine: a study of female authorship in the United Kingdom 
Summary
Objectives
A shortfall exists of female doctors in senior academic posts in the United Kingdom. Career progression depends on measures of esteem, including publication in prestigious journals. This study investigates gender differences in first and senior authorship in six peer-reviewed British journals and factors that are associated with publication rates.
Design and main outcome measures
Data was collected on United Kingdom first and senior authors who had published in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, British Journal of Surgery, Gut, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the Archives of Diseases in Childhood. Authorship and gender were quantified for 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (n=6457). In addition, selected questions from the Athena Survey of Science Engineering and Technology (ASSET2006), web-based doctor's self-report of publications were also analysed (n=1162).
Results
Female first authors increased from 10.5% in 1970 to 36.5% in 2004 (p<0.001) while female senior authors only increased from 12.3% to 16.5% (p=0.046). Within individual journals, the largest rise was in British Journal of Obstetric and Gynaecology with 4.5- and 3-fold increases for first and senior authors, respectively. In contrast, female senior authors marginally declined in Gut and Lancet by 2.8% and 2.2%, respectively. ASSET2006 identified that female respondents who were parents were less likely to have publications as sole (p=0.02) and joint authors (p<0.001) compared to male respondents. Female respondents with care responsibilities for parents/partner also had less publications as lead authors compared to those without carer responsibilities (p<0.001).
Conclusion
The increase in UK female first authors is encouraging. In contrast, there is considerable lag and in some specialties a decline in female senior authors. Factors that could narrow the gender gap in authorship should be sought and addressed.
doi:10.1258/jrsm.2009.080378
PMCID: PMC2726808  PMID: 19679736
15.  The Optic Nerve Head as a Robust Biomechanical System 
Purpose.
Understanding the effects of IOP on the optic nerve head (ONH) is important in understanding glaucoma and ONH structure and function. The authors tested the hypothesis that the ONH is a robust biomechanical structure wherein various factors combine to produce a relatively stable response to IOP.
Methods.
The authors generated two populations of 100,000 ONH numerical models each with randomly selected values, but controlled distributions, either uniform or Gaussian, of ONH geometry and mechanical properties. The authors predicted the lamina cribrosa displacement (LCD), scleral canal expansion (SCE), and the stresses (forces) and deformations (strains) produced by a 10 mm Hg increase in IOP. The authors analyzed the distributions of the responses.
Results.
The responses were distributed nonuniformly, with the majority of the models having a response within a small region, often less than 30% of the size of the overall response region. This concentration of responses was more marked in the Gaussian population than in the uniform population. All the responses were positively skewed. Whether a particular case was typical or not depended on the response used for classification and on whether the decision was made using one-dimensional or two-dimensional criteria.
Conclusions.
Despite wide variations in ONH characteristics and responses to IOP, some responses were much more common than others. This supports conceiving of the eye as a robust structure, particularly for LCD and SCE, which is tolerant to variations in tissue geometry and mechanical properties. The authors also provide the first estimates of the typical mechanical response of the ONH to variations in IOP over a large population of ONHs.
The authors evaluated a large population of models and found that despite wide variations in ONH characteristics and responses to IOP some mechanical effects of IOP were more common than others. This supports conceiving of the eye as a robust biomechanical system which is tolerant to variations in tissue geometry and properties.
doi:10.1167/iovs.11-9303
PMCID: PMC3357115  PMID: 22427598
16.  Optimal Lead Time for Dengue Forecast 
Background
A dengue early warning system aims to prevent a dengue outbreak by providing an accurate prediction of a rise in dengue cases and sufficient time to allow timely decisions and preventive measures to be taken by local authorities. This study seeks to identify the optimal lead time for warning of dengue cases in Singapore given the duration required by a local authority to curb an outbreak.
Methodology and Findings
We developed a Poisson regression model to analyze relative risks of dengue cases as functions of weekly mean temperature and cumulative rainfall with lag times of 1–5 months using spline functions. We examined the duration of vector control and cluster management in dengue clusters > = 10 cases from 2000 to 2010 and used the information as an indicative window of the time required to mitigate an outbreak. Finally, we assessed the gap between forecast and successful control to determine the optimal timing for issuing an early warning in the study area. Our findings show that increasing weekly mean temperature and cumulative rainfall precede risks of increasing dengue cases by 4–20 and 8–20 weeks, respectively. These lag times provided a forecast window of 1–5 months based on the observed weather data. Based on previous vector control operations, the time needed to curb dengue outbreaks ranged from 1–3 months with a median duration of 2 months. Thus, a dengue early warning forecast given 3 months ahead of the onset of a probable epidemic would give local authorities sufficient time to mitigate an outbreak.
Conclusions
Optimal timing of a dengue forecast increases the functional value of an early warning system and enhances cost-effectiveness of vector control operations in response to forecasted risks. We emphasize the importance of considering the forecast-mitigation gaps in respective study areas when developing a dengue forecasting model.
Author Summary
A dengue early warning system that would provide an accurate forecast could enhance the effectiveness of dengue control, but only if it is given in sufficient time for local authorities to implement those control operations. In this study, we have suggested the optimal timing for issuing a warning of a dengue outbreak in Singapore that will allow authorities adequate time to respond. We first analyzed the relationship between the risk of dengue cases and weather predictors at 1–5 month lag times to gauge the possible lead time for providing an accurate dengue forecast. We then determined the average time needed for local authorities to curb the outbreak of clusters of 10 dengue cases or more using vector control and cluster duration records for the period 2000–2010. Increasing weekly mean temperature and cumulative rainfall preceded a rise in dengue cases up to 5 months with higher risks evident at a lag time of 3–4 months. Local authorities required an average of 2 months with a maximum of 3 months for effective control. Therefore, a dengue early warning given at least 3 months ahead of time would provide sufficient time for local authorities to moderate an outbreak.
doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001848
PMCID: PMC3475667  PMID: 23110242
17.  Continuing methadone for pain in palliative care 
BACKGROUND
Methadone is one of the most important medications used for the treatment of refractory pain in the palliative care setting, and is usually initially prescribed by one of a limited number of physicians who have acquired authorization for its use. A lack of authorized physicians able to take over prescribing when the patient is stable is a barrier to accessing methadone for analgesia.
OBJECTIVE:
To determine the barriers to family physicians becoming authorized to prescribe methadone for pain in palliative care.
METHODS:
A survey exploring the perceived barriers to continuing methadone for pain in palliative care following initial prescription by a specialist was mailed to a randomly selected group of 870 family physicians in British Columbia.
RESULTS:
The response rate was 30.9%. Of the 204 responding physicians, 76.1% described themselves as positioned to provide ongoing palliative care to their patients. Within this group, 38 (18.6%) were already authorized to prescribe methadone for pain. The remaining 166 (81.4%) had significant knowledge deficits regarding methadone use in palliative care, but were largely aware of their deficits, and more than one-half were willing to learn more and to obtain an authorization if requested.
CONCLUSIONS:
Responding family physicians had mostly received little education regarding methadone for pain, but were aware of their need for education and were willing to learn. Physicians who had already become authorized were generally satisfied with the process of authorization, and believed the process of education through authorization was appropriate and not onerous.
PMCID: PMC3718057  PMID: 23662290
Education; General practice; Methadone; Pain management; Palliative care
18.  Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2004;328(7452):1350-1353.
Objectives To evaluate how acceptable authors find the BMJ's current practice of publishing short versions of research articles in the paper journal and a longer version on the web and to determine authors' attitudes towards publishing only abstracts in the paper journal and publishing unedited versions on bmj.com once papers have been accepted for publication.
Design Two cross sectional surveys.
Setting General medical journal.
Participants Survey 1: corresponding authors of a consecutive sample of published BMJ research articles that had undergone the ELPS (electronic long, paper short) process. Survey 2: corresponding authors of consecutive research articles submitted to BMJ.
Results Response rates were 90% (104/115) in survey 1 and 75% (213/283) in survey 2. ELPS is largely acceptable to BMJ authors, but there is some concern that electronic information is not permanent and uncertainty about how versions are referenced. While authors who had experienced ELPS reported some problems with editors shortening papers, most were able to rectify these. Overall, 70% thought that the BMJ should continue to use ELPS; 49% thought that publishing just the abstract in the printed journal with the full version only on bmj.com was unacceptable; and 23% thought it unacceptable to post unedited versions on bmj.com once a paper had been accepted for publication.
Conclusions It is acceptable to authors to publish short versions of research articles in the printed version of a general medical journal with longer versions on the website. Authors dislike the idea of publishing only abstracts in the printed journal but are in favour of posting accepted articles on the website ahead of the printed version.
doi:10.1136/bmj.38117.624259.55
PMCID: PMC420287  PMID: 15151965
19.  Achieving compliance with pool fencing legislation in New Zealand: a survey of regulatory authorities 
Injury Prevention  1999;5(2):114-118.
Objectives—To identify the status of compliance and enforcement of New Zealand's Fencing of Swimming Pools Act (FOSP Act), 10 years after its introduction, and to identify methods for improving both compliance with the act and the process of enforcement.
Methods—A postal questionnaire was sent to all 74 authorities in New Zealand in which they were asked questions about their enforcement of the FOSP Act. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 12 authorities to supplement the data obtained in the postal survey.
Results—Based on responses to the survey, it was estimated that there are over 59 000 domestic swimming pools in New Zealand, giving rates of 46 pools/1000 dwellings and 16 pools/1000 persons. The authorities reported that 44% of pools complied with the act, and a further 4% had been granted exemptions. Nineteen per cent of pools were reported to not comply with the act, and the compliance status of a further 33% was not known, or not stated by the authority. Only 9% of authorities had procedures for locating and inspecting pools, while 28% had a programme of reinspection to ensure that pools continued to comply. Pool owner resistance was considered to be the main difficulty with enforcing the act, and nearly half of the authorities believed publicity or education was needed to overcome these barriers. Fifty two per cent of authorities had publicised the act during the 12 months preceding the survey.
Conclusions—Due to ambiguities within the legislation, and differing levels of commitment by authorities to locate pools and monitor compliance, compliance with the FOSP Act is not consistent nationally. If the act were less ambiguous, there would be greater consistency and more enforcement.
PMCID: PMC1730476  PMID: 10385830
20.  Where should health services go: local authorities versus the NHS? 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1995;310(6994):1580-1584.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has recently proposed that responsibility for the NHS should pass from health authorities to local authorities. One of the fiercest debates at the outset of the NHS was whether the hospitals should be run by local authorities. In the end the minister for health, Aneurin Bevan, decided against local democracy and in favour of a national health service. His arguments included the fact that equality of treatment could not be guaranteed if facilities varied with local finances and that even the largest authorities were not big enough to pool risks and expertise. All these arguments still apply today, and the recent changes in community care provide an insight into how a market model of local authority control might work. The changes have been accompanied by a shift from public to private sector provision and the introduction of charges for services that the NHS once provided free. As important, the willingness and ability of local authorities to raise extra revenue from local taxes and charges affect the service they can provide, so leading to inequalities of provision. Local authorities have yet to make the case that they can preserve the fundamental principles and benefits of the NHS, including its reliance on central taxation and unified funding formulas.
PMCID: PMC2549948  PMID: 7787651
21.  Misinformation and misbeliefs in the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis fuel mistrust in the healthcare system. 
The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis (TSUS) is an important issue in research, healthcare, ethics and race relations. The assumed consequences of knowledge of this study on the African-American community include mistrust of the healthcare system. In the July 2005 issue of the Journal of the National Medical Association, Brandon, Isaac and LaVeist (the authors), who were at the Center for Health Disparities Solutions, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, reported the results of black-white differences in awareness of and knowledge about the TSUS and the effect of that awareness and knowledge on medical mistrust. The study surveyed blacks, whites and others in the Baltimore, MD community about their knowledge of and attitudes about the TSUS. The respondents who were aware of the TSUS were asked survey items to assess specific factual information about the TSUS. The respondents who were not aware of the TSUS were read a brief description of the TSUS taken from the CDC website. Both groups were asked if a similar study was possible today. The authors performed a regression analysis of mistrust of medical care based on race, knowledge of the TSUS and demographic variables. The editorial identified and explained challenges in the article, i.e., challenges in calculations, demographic analysis by race, knowledge of TSUS, cultural sensitivity and methodology. The authors miscalculated the "similar proportions" of blacks and whites who were aware of the TSUS; the recalculated proportions, favoring whites, were different than reported by others. There was no demographic analysis by race in their article--also different than other published reports. Most respondents--blacks and whites--who were aware of the TSUS at baseline answered incorrectly the author-selected questions about the TSUS, particularly the fact-based question of whether the TSUS researchers gave syphilis to the men-not dissimilar to one other report. The source for TSUS information (the CDC website) that was used to educate respondents who were not aware of the TSUS at baseline had contradictions, errors and challenges in black history, medical and public health history, and women's studies. The content of what was actually read to respondents was unknown. Proportionally more whites who were not aware of the TSUS but who were read author-selected information about the TSUS believed that a similar study could happen today-a belief and possibly mistrust of medical care that appeared to be induced-compared to whites with prestudy awareness of the TSUS but not read information from the CDC website. Both black groups were not dissimilar from each other. The authors used a survey that measured a race difference in response to a medical event (TSUS) specific to only one racial group (blacks) when there were inclusive examples specific to other groups available. The authors used "Tuskegee" as a single-word sound bite for the TSUS--a misuse that was inappropriate in scientific and research discourse and that may fuel mistrust of medical care. Whether knowledge of the TSUS was a predictor of mistrust of the healthcare system was inconclusive based on the results in the authors' article. The core findings of the article made believing their case difficult. The editorial suggested that bias and misinformation in undertaking, analysis and reporting the study may in itself fuel mistrust in medical care in the community. Because of these challenges, the editorial urged caution with regard to any change in research direction or policy debate based on the results reported in the article.
PMCID: PMC2594917  PMID: 16334509
22.  Strategies for obtaining unpublished drug trial data: a qualitative interview study 
Systematic Reviews  2013;2:31.
Background
Authors of systematic reviews have difficulty obtaining unpublished data for their reviews. This project aimed to provide an in-depth description of the experiences of authors in searching for and gaining access to unpublished data for their systematic reviews, and to give guidance on best practices for identifying, obtaining and using unpublished data.
Methods
This is a qualitative study analyzing in-depth interviews with authors of systematic reviews who have published Cochrane reviews or published systematic reviews outside of The Cochrane Library. We included participants who 1) were the first or senior author of a published systematic review of a drug intervention, 2) had expertise in conducting systematic reviews, searching for data, and assessing methodological biases, and 3) were able to participate in an interview in English. We used non-random sampling techniques to identify potential participants. Eighteen Cochrane authors were contacted and 16 agreed to be interviewed (89% response rate). Twenty-four non-Cochrane authors were contacted and 16 were interviewed (67% response rate).
Results
Respondents had different understandings of what was meant by unpublished data, including specific outcomes and methodological details. Contacting study authors was the most common method used to obtain unpublished data and the value of regulatory agencies as a data source was underappreciated. Using the data obtained was time consuming and labor intensive. Respondents described the collaboration with other colleagues and/or students required to organize, manage and use the data in their reviews, generally developing and using templates, spreadsheets and computer programs for data extraction and analysis. Respondents had a shared belief that data should be accessible but some had concerns about sharing their own data. Respondents believed that obtaining unpublished data for reviews has important public health implications. There was widespread support for government intervention to ensure open access to trial data.
Conclusions
Respondents uniformly agreed that the benefit of identifying unpublished data was worth the effort and was necessary to identify the true harms and benefits of drugs. Recent actions by government, such as increased availability of trial data from the European Medicines Agency, may make it easier to acquire critical drug trial data.
doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-31
PMCID: PMC3685609  PMID: 23680054
Systematic review; Meta-analysis; The Cochrane Collaboration; Reporting bias; Publication bias
23.  Retrospective analysis of census data on general practitioners who qualified in South Asia: who will replace them as they retire? 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1999;318(7179):306-310.
Objectives
To determine the number and geographical distribution of general practitioners in the NHS who qualified medically in South Asia and to project their numbers as they retire.
Design
Retrospective analysis of yearly data and projection of future trends.
Setting
England and Wales.
Subjects
General practitioners who qualified medically in the countries of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka and who were practising in the NHS on 1 October 1992.
Main outcome measures
Proportion and age of general practitioners who qualified in South Asia by health authority; the Benzeval and Judge measure of population need at the health authority level.
Results
4192 of 25 333 (16.5%) of all unrestricted general practitioners practising full time on 1 October 1992 qualified in South Asian medical schools. The proportion varied by health authority from 0.007% to 56.5%. Roughly two thirds who were practising in 1992 will have retired by 2007; in some health authorities this will represent a loss of one in four general practitioners. The practices that these doctors will leave seem to be in relatively deprived areas as measured by deprivation payments and a health authority measure of population need.
Conclusion
Many general practitioners who qualified in South Asian medical schools will retire within the next decade. The impact will vary greatly by health authority. Those health authorities with the greatest number of such doctors are in some of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom and have experienced the most difficulty in filling vacancies. Various responses will be required by workforce planners to mitigate the impact of these retirements.
Key messagesCurrently, one in six general practitioners practising full time in the NHS qualified medically in a South Asian medical school; two thirds are likely to retire by 2007It is unlikely that doctors who qualify in South Asia will be a source of general practice recruitment in the futureThe posts from which South Asian qualifiers are retiring may be more difficult to fill because they are often in practices in areas of higher needThere is extreme variation in the proportion of total general practitioners who are South Asian qualifiers; flexibility for policy responses should be maintained
PMCID: PMC27716  PMID: 9924060
24.  Multi-institutional arrangements: relationships between governing boards and hospital chief executive officers. 
Health Services Research  1985;19(6 Pt 1):675-699.
This investigation focuses on the impact of multi-institutional arrangements on the role of governing boards in limiting or enhancing the managerial autonomy of individual hospitals. Data from a 1979 Special Survey by the American Hospital Association (N = 4213) are used to examine governing board-administrator relationships as a function of the degree of autonomy and scope of responsibility of the hospital governing board. It is hypothesized that governing boards responsible for multiple hospitals or for multiple nonhospital organizations and those boards accountable to a higher organizational authority will exercise more formal control over hospital chief executive officers (CEOs) than will boards of single or autonomous hospitals. The analysis assumes that formal control by the governing board over the management function of the individual hospital is exercised partly through soliciting or limiting participation by hospital administrators in key policy decisions and through the evaluation of administrative performance. Therefore, it is anticipated that hospitals governed by boards with multiple responsibilities as well as hospitals governed by boards accountable to a higher authority will be (1) less likely to have CEOs who are members of the governing board executive committee, (2) more likely to have annual performance reviews of the CEO by the governing board, and (3) more likely to have such reviews conducted according to preestablished criteria. Study results provide general support for the hypotheses with respect to hospital boards with multiple responsibilities: the data suggest that such boards do exercise greater control over hospital administrators and these effects do appear to be stronger for hospitals in the private sector. Hospitals governed by boards accountable to a higher authority, however, are more likely to have CEOs who are members of the governing board executive committee--a pattern in direct opposition to that hypothesized. Furthermore, these boards are no more likely to conduct annual CEO performance reviews than are boards with more autonomy. Boards accountable to higher authorities are more likely, however, to use preestablished criteria when such reviews are conducted. This general pattern is similar whether hospital boards are accountable to religious authorities, to investor-owned corporate boards, or to the boards of not-for-profit multi-institutional systems. A different pattern emerges, however, for boards accountable to a state, county, or local government authority.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
PMCID: PMC1068854  PMID: 3972592
25.  ETHICAL ASPECTS AND DILEMMAS OF PREPARING, WRITING AND PUBLISHING OF THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS IN THE BIOMEDICAL JOURNALS 
Acta Informatica Medica  2012;20(3):141-148.
Introduction:
In this paper author discussed about preparing and submitting manuscripts - scientific, research, professional papers, reviews and case reports. Author described it from the Editor’s perspective, and specially talked about ethical aspects of authorship, conflict of interest, copyright, plagiarism and duplicate publication from the point of view of his experiences as Editor-in-Chief of several biomedical journals and Chief of Task Force of European Federation of Medical Informatics journals and member of Task Force of European Cardiology Society journals. The scientific process relies on trust and credibility. The scientific community demands high ethical standards to conduct biomedical research and to publish scientific contents. During the last decade, disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI ), (also called competing loyalties, competing interests or dual commitments), has been considered as a key element to guarantee the credibility of the scientific process. Biases in design, analysis and interpretation of studies may arise when authors or sponsors have vested interests. Therefore, COI should be made clear to the readers to facilitate their own judgment and interpretation of their relevance and potential implications.
Results and Discussion:
Authors are responsible to fully disclose potential COI . In October 2009 the ICMJE proposed an electronic “uniform” format for COI disclosure. Four main areas were addressed: authors´ associations with entities that supported the submitted manuscript (indefinite time frame), associations with commercial entities with potential interest in the general area of the manuscript (time frame 36 months), financial association of their spouse and children and, finally, non-financial associations potentially relevant to the submitted manuscript. Consumers of medical scholarship expect a reliable system of disclosure in which journals and authors make disclosures appropriately and consistently. There is a stigma surrounding the reporting of COI that should be progressively overcome. Further actions are required to increase awareness of the importance of COI disclosure and to promote policies aimed to enhance transparency in biomedical research. In this article author discuss about important ethical dilemmas in preparing, writing and publishing of scientific manuscripts in biomedical journals.
doi:10.5455/aim.2012.20.141-148
PMCID: PMC3508847  PMID: 23322969
medical science; biomedical journals; ethics; authorship; acknowledgement; conflict of interest; copyright; plagiarism; duplicate publication.

Results 1-25 (309890)