Article type
Abstract
Background: Editorial management of journal manuscripts should ideally be fair and objective. However, editors and peer reviewers may have conflicts of interest, which can influence manuscript assessments and editorial decisions.
Objectives: To characterise medical journals’ conflicts of interest policies for editors and peer reviewers and describe how they manage and enforce policies.
Methods: Cross-sectional study. We randomly sampled 250 medical journals from the Journal Citation Report’s (JCR) “Clinical Medicine” group and excluded journals without websites or policies in English. We searched journal websites for conflict of interest policies for editors and peer reviewers and disclosures from editors and peer reviewers. Two authors independently extracted data from included policy documents. Further, we sent a questionnaire to each journal concerning management and enforcement of the journal’s conflict of interest policy. We estimated the association between journal characteristics and the existence of a journal policy using mixed effects logistic regression. We analysed the content of policies and questionnaire responses both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Study protocol: https://osf.io/jvxz7
Results: The 250 journals had a median impact factor of 3.1 (interquartile range 1.9 to 4.5) and were from 46 different JCR clinical “categories” (e.g., oncology). Preliminary results from 125 journals: Twenty (16%) journals were open-access journals, 43 (34%) were followers of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, 79 (63%) were Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) members, and 68 (54%) were associated with a third party (e.g., specialist society). Seventy-nine (63%) journals had conflict of interest policies for editors and 73 (58%) for peer reviewers. Eight (6%) journal websites had disclosures from editors, and none had disclosures from peer reviewers. Results from the remaining journals, the questionnaire and additional analyses will be available for presentation at the Global Evidence Summit 2024.
Conclusions: Around half of medical journals have publicly available conflicts of interest policies for editors and reviewers, and journal websites rarely disclose the interests of editors and peer reviewers. There is considerable room for improving disclosure and management of conflicts of interest in medical journals, thereby enhancing transparency and trustworthiness of science to the benefit of society and patients. Further conclusions await pending results.
Objectives: To characterise medical journals’ conflicts of interest policies for editors and peer reviewers and describe how they manage and enforce policies.
Methods: Cross-sectional study. We randomly sampled 250 medical journals from the Journal Citation Report’s (JCR) “Clinical Medicine” group and excluded journals without websites or policies in English. We searched journal websites for conflict of interest policies for editors and peer reviewers and disclosures from editors and peer reviewers. Two authors independently extracted data from included policy documents. Further, we sent a questionnaire to each journal concerning management and enforcement of the journal’s conflict of interest policy. We estimated the association between journal characteristics and the existence of a journal policy using mixed effects logistic regression. We analysed the content of policies and questionnaire responses both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Study protocol: https://osf.io/jvxz7
Results: The 250 journals had a median impact factor of 3.1 (interquartile range 1.9 to 4.5) and were from 46 different JCR clinical “categories” (e.g., oncology). Preliminary results from 125 journals: Twenty (16%) journals were open-access journals, 43 (34%) were followers of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, 79 (63%) were Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) members, and 68 (54%) were associated with a third party (e.g., specialist society). Seventy-nine (63%) journals had conflict of interest policies for editors and 73 (58%) for peer reviewers. Eight (6%) journal websites had disclosures from editors, and none had disclosures from peer reviewers. Results from the remaining journals, the questionnaire and additional analyses will be available for presentation at the Global Evidence Summit 2024.
Conclusions: Around half of medical journals have publicly available conflicts of interest policies for editors and reviewers, and journal websites rarely disclose the interests of editors and peer reviewers. There is considerable room for improving disclosure and management of conflicts of interest in medical journals, thereby enhancing transparency and trustworthiness of science to the benefit of society and patients. Further conclusions await pending results.