Cargando…

Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats

OBJECTIVES: Medical journals in Japan generally have appropriate policies regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI). However, COI management depends on the staff members of each journal's editorial secretariat. This study's objectives were to find out (A) whether COI disclosure a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kojima, Takako, Green, Joseph, Barron, J Patrick
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26310399
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007957
_version_ 1782388102086524928
author Kojima, Takako
Green, Joseph
Barron, J Patrick
author_facet Kojima, Takako
Green, Joseph
Barron, J Patrick
author_sort Kojima, Takako
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Medical journals in Japan generally have appropriate policies regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI). However, COI management depends on the staff members of each journal's editorial secretariat. This study's objectives were to find out (A) whether COI disclosure and the journal's role in it are clearly understood by the journal’s secretariat staff, (B) how much experience the editorial secretariat has in actually handling issues related to disclosure and (C) what kind of help or support they need. SETTING AND DESIGN: In January 2014, questionnaires were sent to the editorial secretariats of journal-publishing societies belonging to the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS). PARTICIPANTS: The response rate was 100%, and the respondents represented 121 journals published by the 118 JAMS member societies (at the time of the survey). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Information was collected on the history of COI policies and on how those policies were implemented. At the end of the questionnaire, there was an open-ended call for comments. RESULTS: Compulsory COI disclosure began between 2010 and 2013 for 60.3% of the journals (73/121). Handling of COI issues was not uniform: 17.4% (21/121) of respondents do not pursue cases of dubious disclosure, and 47.9% (58/121) do not require COI disclosures from editorial board members. Very few of the editorial secretariats had clearly-stated consequences for violations of COI-disclosure policy (33/121, 27.3%), and only 28.9% offered COI education (35/121). Respondents’ comments indicated that uniform, easily-searchable guidance regarding COI policies and implementation would be welcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although commitment is widespread, policy implementation is inconsistent and COI experience is lacking. Clear, easy-to-use guidelines are desired by many societies. The JAMS is to be commended for supporting this country-wide investigation; other countries and regions are encouraged to perform similar investigations to respond to needs regarding COI management.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4554913
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45549132015-09-03 Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats Kojima, Takako Green, Joseph Barron, J Patrick BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review OBJECTIVES: Medical journals in Japan generally have appropriate policies regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI). However, COI management depends on the staff members of each journal's editorial secretariat. This study's objectives were to find out (A) whether COI disclosure and the journal's role in it are clearly understood by the journal’s secretariat staff, (B) how much experience the editorial secretariat has in actually handling issues related to disclosure and (C) what kind of help or support they need. SETTING AND DESIGN: In January 2014, questionnaires were sent to the editorial secretariats of journal-publishing societies belonging to the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS). PARTICIPANTS: The response rate was 100%, and the respondents represented 121 journals published by the 118 JAMS member societies (at the time of the survey). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Information was collected on the history of COI policies and on how those policies were implemented. At the end of the questionnaire, there was an open-ended call for comments. RESULTS: Compulsory COI disclosure began between 2010 and 2013 for 60.3% of the journals (73/121). Handling of COI issues was not uniform: 17.4% (21/121) of respondents do not pursue cases of dubious disclosure, and 47.9% (58/121) do not require COI disclosures from editorial board members. Very few of the editorial secretariats had clearly-stated consequences for violations of COI-disclosure policy (33/121, 27.3%), and only 28.9% offered COI education (35/121). Respondents’ comments indicated that uniform, easily-searchable guidance regarding COI policies and implementation would be welcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although commitment is widespread, policy implementation is inconsistent and COI experience is lacking. Clear, easy-to-use guidelines are desired by many societies. The JAMS is to be commended for supporting this country-wide investigation; other countries and regions are encouraged to perform similar investigations to respond to needs regarding COI management. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4554913/ /pubmed/26310399 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007957 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Medical Publishing and Peer Review
Kojima, Takako
Green, Joseph
Barron, J Patrick
Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats
title Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats
title_full Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats
title_fullStr Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats
title_full_unstemmed Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats
title_short Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats
title_sort conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats
topic Medical Publishing and Peer Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26310399
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007957
work_keys_str_mv AT kojimatakako conflictofinterestdisclosureatmedicaljournalsinjapananationwidesurveyofthepracticesofjournalsecretariats
AT greenjoseph conflictofinterestdisclosureatmedicaljournalsinjapananationwidesurveyofthepracticesofjournalsecretariats
AT barronjpatrick conflictofinterestdisclosureatmedicaljournalsinjapananationwidesurveyofthepracticesofjournalsecretariats