Conflicts of interest in academic publishing
[2] Conflicts of interest increase the likelihood of biases arising; they can harm the quality of research and the public good (even if disclosed).
Some institutional ethics policies ban academics from entering into specific types of COIs, for instance by prohibiting them from accepting gifts from companies connected with their work.
[3][6] Conflicts of interest have also been considered as a statistical factor confounding evidence, which must therefore be measured as accurately as possible and analysed, requiring machine-readable disclosure.
It also says; "All participants in the peer-review and publication process—not only authors but also peer reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of journals—must consider their conflicts of interest when fulfilling their roles in the process of article review and publication and must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest".
Citing the ICMJE that "all participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest", it highly recommends COI disclosure for sponsors, authors, reviewers, journals, and editorial staff.
[9] The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) publishes a code of conduct stating, "[t]here must be clear definitions of conflicts of interest and processes for handling conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, editors, journals and publishers, whether identified before or after publication".
[12] A 2009 US Institute of Medicine report on medical COIs states that conflict-of-interest policies should be judged on their proportionality, transparency, accountability, and fairness; they should be effective, efficient, and targeted, known and understood, clearly identify who is responsible for monitoring, enforcement, and amendment, and apply equally to everyone involved.
[26] A reprint is a copy of an individual article[27] that is printed and sold as a separate product by the journal or its publisher or agent.
A journal may sell a million dollars worth of reprints of a single article if, for example, it is a large industry-funded clinical trial.
A journal will generally want to increase its impact factor in hope of gaining more subscriptions, better submissions, and more prestige.
[31] Journals may find it difficult to correct and retract erroneous papers after publication because of legal threats.
These supplements are often subsidized by an external sponsor with a financial interest in the outcome of research in that field; for instance, a drug manufacturer or food industry group.
[34] Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "s" added to a page number.
[35] The ICMJE code of conduct specifically addresses guest-editor COIs; "Editors should publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to their own commitments and those of their journal staff.
It also states that the usual journal editor must maintain full control and responsibility and that "Editing by the funding organization should not be permitted".
[2] The US Food and Drug Administration states that supplement articles should not be used as medical-marketing reprints, but as of 2009[update] it had no legal authority to prohibit the practice.
[17] Many journals have policies limiting COIs staff can enter into; for instance, accepting gifts of travel, accommodation, or hospitality may be prohibited.
[2] Half to two-thirds of journals, depending on subject area, did not follow this recommendation in the first two decades of the 21st century.
[41] Readers of academic papers may spot errors, informally or as part of formal post-publication peer review.
[45] Even if a conflict of interest is reported by a reader after publication, COPE does not suggest independent investigation, as of 2017[update].
The publisher may charge authors substantial fees for retracting papers, even in cases of honest error, giving them a financial disincentive to correct the record.
[3] Ghost authorship, where a writer contributes but is not credited, has been estimated to affect a significant proportion of the research literature.
[52] To avoid misreported authorship, a requirement that all authors describe the contribution they made to the study ("movie-style credits") has been advocated for.
[57] In some cases, a contract with a sponsor may mean those named as investigators and authors on the papers may not have access to the trial data, control over the publication text, or the freedom to talk about their work.
[58][59] Some journals require a promise to provide access to the original data to researchers intending to replicate the work.
[67] A similar relationship has been found in clinical trials of surgical interventions, where industry funding leads to researchers exaggerating the positive nature of their findings.
[40] With few exceptions, multiple ethical guidelines forbid researchers with a financial interest in the outcome from being involved in human trials.
[71] Ethical rules, including the Declaration of Helsinki, require the publication of results of human trials.
[58] Some journals place COI declarations at the beginning of an article but most put it in smaller print at the end.
[3] Failure to disclose a conflict of interest may, depending on the circumstances, be considered a form of corruption[78] or academic misconduct.
