首页> 外文期刊>AJOB empirical bioethics. >Conflicts of interest policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals
【24h】

Conflicts of interest policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals

机译:作者,同行评审员和生物伦理学期刊编辑的利益策略冲突

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

In biomedical research, there have been numerous scandals highlighting conflicts of interest (COIs) leading to significant bias in judgment and questionable practices. Academic institutions, journals, and funding agencies have developed and enforced policies to mitigate issues related to COI, especially surrounding financial interests. After a case of editorial COI in a prominent bioethics journal, there is concern that the same level of oversight regarding COIs in the biomedical sciences may not apply to the field of bioethics. In this study, we examined the availability and comprehensiveness of COI policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals. Methods: After developing a codebook, we analyzed the content of online COI policies of 63 bioethics journals, along with policy information provided by journal editors that was not publicly available. Results: Just over half of the bioethics journals had COI policies for authors (57%), and only 25% for peer reviewers and 19% for editors. There was significant variation among policies regarding definitions, the types of COIs described, the management mechanisms, and the consequences for noncompli-ance. Definitions and descriptions centered on financial COIs, followed by personal and professional relationships. Almost all COI policies required disclosure of interests for authors as the primary management mechanism. Very few journals outlined consequences for noncompliance with COI policies or provided additional resources. Conclusion: Compared to other studies of biomedical journals, a much lower percentage of bioethics journals have COI policies and these vary substantially in content. The bioethics publishing community needs to develop robust policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors and these should be made publicly available to enhance academic and public trust in bioethics scholarship.
机译:在生物医学研究中,有许多丑闻突出了利益冲突(CoIS),导致判决和可疑做法的大量偏见。学术机构,期刊和资助机构已制定和强制执行与COI相关问题的政策,特别是周围的财务利益。经过一个突出的生物伦理学杂志的案例,令人担心的是,对生物医学科学的COIS的同等程度的监督可能不适用于生物伦理的领域。在这项研究中,我们检查了生物伦理期刊的作者,同行评审员和编辑的COI政策的可用性和全面性。方法:开发码本后,我们分析了63个生物伦理期刊的在线COI政策的内容,以及未公开可用的编辑编辑提供的政策信息。结果:超过一半的生物伦理学期刊为作者(57%)有COI政策,同行评审员只有25%,编辑为19%。关于定义的政策之间存在重大变化,所描述的CoI的类型,管理机制以及非符合性的后果。定义和描述以金融CoIS为中心,其次是个人和专业关系。几乎所有COI政策都需要披露作者作为主要管理机制的利益。很少有期刊概述了与COI政策不合规或提供额外资源的后果。结论:与其他生物医学期刊的研究相比,生物伦理期刊的百分比大得多有COI政策,这些含量明显不同。发布社区的生物伦理学家需要为提交人,同行评审员和编辑制定强大的政策,这些政策应公开可公开可用于加强在生物伦理学奖学金中的学术和公众信任。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号