Data sharing: A new editorial initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship – emphasising the importance of responsibility and accountability – have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors’ Network of the European Society of Cardiology.     

HIV/AIDS research conducted in the developing world and sponsored by the developed world: reporting of research ethics committee review in two countries

We explored how often journal articles reporting HIV research sponsored by a developed country, but conducted in a developing country, mention research ethics committee (REC) approval from both countries, and what factors are involved. Of all such 2007 articles on Medline conducted in one of four developing countries (N = 154), only 52% mentioned such dual approval. Mention of dual vs. single approval was more likely among articles with ≥ 50% sponsor country authors, and the United States as the sponsor country. Also, dual approval was more likely among articles that mentioned informed consent and funding, had ≥ 50% sponsor country authors, were biomedical (vs. psychosocial), and appeared in journals adopting International Committee Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. Dual approval was thus obtained in only half of the articles and was associated with ethical and logistic issues, indicating the need for clearer and more universally accepted guidelines.     

The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty.

OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge, views, and behaviour of researchers on criteria for authorship and causes and control of gift authorship. DESIGN: Interview survey of stratified sample of researchers. SETTING: University medical faculty. SUBJECTS: 66 staff (94% response rate) comprising several levels of university academic and research appointments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Awareness and use of criteria for authorship, views on which contributions to research merit authorship, perceptions about gift authorship and strategies for reducing it, and experiences of authorship problems. RESULTS: 50 (76%) respondents supported criteria for authorship, but few knew about or used available criteria. Of the five people who could specify all three criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, only one knew that all criteria had to be met. Forty one respondents (62%) disagreed with this stipulation. A range of practical and academic contributions were seen as sufficient for authorship. Gift authorship was perceived as common, promoted by pressure to publish, to motivate research teams, and to maintain working relationships. A signed statement justifying authorship and a published statement of the contribution of each author were perceived as practical ways of tackling gift authorship. Most researchers had experienced problems with authorship, most commonly the perception that authorship had been deserved but not awarded (49%). CONCLUSION: There seems to be a gap between editors'' criteria for authorship and researchers'' practice. Lack of awareness of criteria is only a partial explanation. Researchers give more weight than editors to practical research contributions. Future criteria should be agreed by researchers and not be imposed by editors.     

Six authors in search of a citation: villains or victims of the Vancouver convention?

OBJECTIVES--To analyse trends in the number of authors per article over the past 10 years. DESIGN--Analysis of articles from random volumes of eight biomedical journals. SUBJECTS--Cell, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (PNAS), Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI), Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications (BBRC), Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Median and modal numbers of authors. RESULTS--All journals except Cell and Nature showed a trend towards increasing authorship numbers over the study period. The trend was most noticeable in journals such as JCO which feature clinical research. General medical journals (Lancet, NEJM) with a median of six to seven authors per article published far fewer seven author than six author studies, which suggests that author number may be influenced by the Vancouver convention which precludes citation of more than six authors. CONCLUSIONS--The phenomenon of expanding authorship in biomedical journal articles is not explained by the hypothesis that newer research technologies have necessitated more extensive collaboration. Rather, the data suggest that conferral of authorship may sometimes have a volitional component which contributes to rising author numbers. It is proposed that replacement of the Vancouver convention with a "first author, last author" citation system may help stem this rise in author numbers.     

Challenges and opportunities of publishing supplements at <Emphasis Type="Italic">Arthritis Research &; Therapy</Emphasis>

Supplements are the cause of much debate in the world of journal publishing. Supplements are criticized for the fact that often they are funded by an external source, and journals have been known to shy away from their publication [1]. But is refusing to publish supplements the only answer? At Arthritis Research & Therapy, we feel that - if subjected to the full rigors of peer review - supplements can provide invaluable educational resources, exploring themes in a detailed and focused way that might not always be possible in the main journal.At Arthritis Research & Therapy, we have decided that the potential risk of a loss of objectivity in industry-sponsored supplements can be managed by scrupulous attention to the peer-review process. Therefore, in our experience, the benefit of publishing supplements greatly outweighs any perception of loss of objectivity. We should note that our colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry have embraced our approach with no efforts to circumvent our rules, as far as we know.We consider proceedings, review collections, and meeting abstracts for inclusion as supplements. Examples of recent supplements are easily accessed on the journal website. It will be apparent that the emphasis is on the molecular and cellular basis of immune and inflammatory mechanisms of disease. The underwriting by the sponsor of the cost of peer review and production ensures that the high-quality publication is freely available. Outlined below is the procedure that we follow when considering any potential supplements for the journal. We recognize the potential for competing interests to influence the content of articles where there is industry involvement, but we believe that by adhering to a stringent publication process we negate this risk with our supplement content.So, what is the procedure? First, in a change from the approach taken by many journals, we appoint an ''internal'' Supplement Editor (usually from the journal''s Editorial Board), whose role is to select peer reviewers and assess the suitability of the supplement articles for publication in the journal. This internal editor is selected by the Editors-in-Chief, and the sponsor''s approval is not sought in making this appointment. Before their appointment, internal editors are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest, and full disclosures are included in both online and print versions of any supplements. In cases in which internal editors receive a stipend, this is paid for by the publisher - not the sponsor. All conflict of interest disclosures associated with supplement publications follow the National Library of Medicine policy for indexing supplement articles in MEDLINE [2].For some supplements, particularly where articles are commissioned externally, there may be an ''external'' Supplement Editor as well as the internal editor. Before their appointment, external supplement editors must be approved by the Editors-in-Chief. Their role is to identify the subject matter and propose suitable authors for the individual supplement articles, with the proviso that all content must be approved by the Editors-in-Chief. The external editor is not involved in the peer review of any of the articles once submitted. They are also asked for full conflict of interest disclosures, which are included in the supplement publication alongside those of the internal editor.One of the common criticisms levied against supplements is that the articles are not peer-reviewed to the journal''s normal standards. At Arthritis Research & Therapy, supplement articles go through the same thorough peer-review process as articles do in the main journal [3]. The Editors-in-Chief have full editorial control, including the ability to ask authors to make extensive revisions, and reserve the right to reject articles that do not meet the journal''s standards. And in accordance with the guidelines of the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors [4], all contracts clearly include information about editorial control and the role of the internal supplement editor.In addition to disclosures from the individual editors, sources of funding for a supplement are prominently displayed on the supplement title page, and funding is also acknowledged in each individual article. We ensure that supplements can be clearly distinguished as separate from the main journal content on the journal homepage. As with all of our articles, individual authors declare their conflicts of interest. This complies with the good publication practice (GPP2) guidelines [5]. We also adhere to the guidelines of the European Medical Writers Association [6] by ensuring that the involvement of any medical writers is disclosed in an article''s acknowledgments section along with their sources of funding.We hope that by ensuring that there is full transparency of disclosures from everyone involved in supplements and following strictly the peer-review procedure described above, we avoid the potential pitfalls of supplement publishing. The guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors themselves state that supplements ''serve useful purposes'' and it is our responsibility as editors to ensure that they continue to be useful without allowing ourselves to be subject to industry influence. By publicly disclosing our policy for supplement review here, we hope that other journals will be more open about their peer-review policies for supplements and that they adopt similarly stringent practices in the future.     

The reporting of IRB review in journal articles presenting HIV research conducted in the developing world

Objectives: We investigated how often journal articles reporting on human HIV research in four developing world countries mention any institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees (RECs), and what factors are involved. Methods: We examined all such articles published in 2007 from India, Nigeria, Thailand and Uganda, and coded these for several ethical and other characteristics. Results: Of 221 articles meeting inclusion criteria, 32.1% did not mention IRB approval. Mention of IRB approval was associated with: biomedical (versus psychosocial) research (P = 0.001), more sponsor‐country authors (P = 0.003), sponsor‐country corresponding author (P = 0.047), mention of funding (P < 0.001), particular host‐country involved (P = 0.002), journals having sponsor‐country editors (P < 0.001), and journal stated compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines (P = 0.003). Logistic regression identified 3 significant factors: mention of funding, journal having sponsor‐country editors and research being biomedical. Conclusions: One‐third of articles still do not mention IRB approval. Mention varied by country, and was associated with biomedical research, and more sponsor country involvement. Recently, some journals have required mention of IRB approval, but allow authors to do so in cover letters to editors, not in the article itself. Instead, these data suggest, journals should require that articles document adherence to ethical standards.     

Articles by Latin American Authors in Prestigious Journals Have Fewer Citations

Background

The journal Impact factor (IF) is generally accepted to be a good measurement of the relevance/quality of articles that a journal publishes. In spite of an, apparently, homogenous peer-review process for a given journal, we hypothesize that the country affiliation of authors from developing Latin American (LA) countries affects the IF of a journal detrimentally.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Seven prestigious international journals, one multidisciplinary journal and six serving specific branches of science, were examined in terms of their IF in the Web of Science. Two subsets of each journal were then selected to evaluate the influence of author''s affiliation on the IF. They comprised contributions (i) with authorship from four Latin American (LA) countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico) and (ii) with authorship from five developed countries (England, France, Germany, Japan and USA). Both subsets were further subdivided into two groups: articles with authorship from one country only and collaborative articles with authorship from other countries. Articles from the five developed countries had IF close to the overall IF of the journals and the influence of collaboration on this value was minor. In the case of LA articles the effect of collaboration (virtually all with developed countries) was significant. The IFs for non-collaborative articles averaged 66% of the overall IF of the journals whereas the articles in collaboration raised the IFs to values close to the overall IF.

Conclusion/Significance

The study shows a significantly lower IF in the group of the subsets of non-collaborative LA articles and thus that country affiliation of authors from non-developed LA countries does affect the IF of a journal detrimentally. There are no data to indicate whether the lower IFs of LA articles were due to their inherent inferior quality/relevance or psycho-social trend towards under-citation of articles from these countries. However, further study is required since there are foreseeable consequences of this trend as it may stimulate strategies by editors to turn down articles that tend to be under-cited.     

The changing nature of collaboration in tropical ecology and conservation

Collaboration can improve conservation initiatives through increases in article impact and by building scientific understating required for conservation practice. We investigated temporal trends in collaboration in the tropical ecology and conservation literature by examining patterns of authorship for 2271 articles published from 2000 to 2016 in Biotropica and the Journal of Tropical Ecology. Consistent with trends in other studies and scientific disciplines, we found that the number of authors per article increased from 2.6 in 2000 to 4.2 in 2015 using a generalized linear model (glm). We modeled changes in multinational collaboration in articles using a glm and found that the mean number of author‐affiliated countries increased from 1.3 (±0.6 SD) to 1.7 (±0.8 SD) over time and that increases were best explained by the number of authors per article. The proportion of authors based in tropical countries increased, but the probability of tropical–extratropical collaboration did not and was best explained solely by the number of authors per article. Overall, our analyses suggest that only certain types of collaboration are increasing and that these increases coincide with a general increase in the number of authors per article. Such changes in author numbers and collaboration could be the result of increased data sharing, changes in the scope of research questions, changes in authorship criteria, or scientific migration. We encourage tropical conservation scientists continue to build collaborative ties, particularly with researchers based in underrepresented tropical countries, to ensure that tropical ecology and conservation remains inclusive and effective.     

Protection of patients' rights to privacy

The following statement was agreed [upon] by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the Vancouver Group) at its meeting last week in San Francisco. It is a complete revision of the initial guidelines on this subject issued in 1991.     

Illegitimate authorship and flawed procedures: Fundamental,formal criticisms of the Declaration of Helsinki

Some of the recent criticisms published during and after the last revision process of the Declaration of Helsinki are directed at its basic legitimacy. In this article we want to have a closer look at the two criticisms we consider to be the most fundamental. The first criticism questions the legitimate authorship of the World Medical Association to publish a document such as the Declaration. The second fundamental criticism we want to examine argues that the last revision process failed to meet the standards for fair, democratic procedures. Although both criticisms deny the formal legitimacy of the Declaration in the most fundamental way, they have never been addressed in detail in a single article. We refute most of the related arguments. However, acknowledging some of the points made, improvements for future revision processes and versions of the Declaration of Helsinki are outlined.     

Retraction

These articles have been retracted at the request of the authors.Reason: In July of 2002, Mechanisms of Development started publishing its section Gene Expression Patterns (until then included under the Mechanisms of Development title) under the separate title Gene Expression Patterns, as a separate section of Mechanisms of Development.This change was clearly communicated at the time in the journal and on the journal’s web site. The Editors also informed the authors about this. Early 2003, it came to our attention that a mistake was made during the split with regard to a number of Gene Expression Patterns articles in the pipeline (between initial submission and final acceptance). Due to a miscommunication for which the publisher accepts the responsibility, not all the editors used the same cut-off date for the split. As a result, some articles have been published under the Gene Expression Patterns title that should have been published in the main section of Mechanisms of Development. The publisher is very much aware of the serious nature of this mistake and we apologise to the authors, readers and editors of the journal.In the first months of 2003, we consulted with a number of the authors involved to discuss possible options to remedy the situation, and at the request of the authors, we agreed to retract the articles of the authors concerned, who requested this. We also agreed to offer this opportunity to those authors who were notified by the editors, but who misunderstood the message due to the fact that the proofs of their article still had the MoD logo and title on the opening page. The articles are re-published in supplement 1 to Vol. 119 under the Mechanisms of Development title.The Publisher