It’s Time for an Integrity Throwdown: Conflicts of Interests in Scientific Communications

Some people begin their day with a market or news update, meditation, exercise routine or something funny. I begin my day with a dose of Retraction Watch. Recently, a couple of articles caught my eye.

As the publisher of two new emerging market journals, I’m particularly sensitive to the ethics and integrity exhibited in the marketplace. New publishers are typically met with a great deal of skepticism. Ivory tower eyebrows are raised and so is the word “predatory” when a new journal is launched — unless, of course, you are a member of the “legacy brigade.”

During the height of unscrupulous fraud in the crypto currency market, I decided to validate and build credibility for blockchain technology’s potential by launching the first international open access peer reviewed journal in blockchain for healthcare (BHTY), and proceeded to roll the boulder up the hill.

I was careful to distance the journal with a niche editorial mission and ethical practices to set us not only apart from the heard, but anticipated how much more relevant ethics would become.

I believe it is time for an integrity throwdown.

When we launched BHTY, we did not accept editorial board members or peer reviewers that were from the commercial side albeit some of the most brilliant minds were employed there — and we needed them because it was such a groundbreaking field. Why? Because we didn’t want potential “commercial interests” besmirching the integrity or perception of the clarity, purpose and ethics of the journal’s editorial rasion d’etre or reputations listed on the masthead.

It pained me to asked three board members to step down when they transitioned to the commercial side. We published mission pillars and partnership expectations, which are still in effect (see http://www.partnersindigitalhealth.com/method.html). In year two of publication, we opened the board to those on the commercial side because many were accelerating the market with hands on experience versus theoretical, so we bit the proverbial bullet. Ultimately, two board members rejoined while the third took another path.

From the outset, we required publishing conflict of interest/financial disclosures. This is for transparency and trust purposes. I wanted to be as transparent with the audience as possible to conclude BHTY was and is a credible journal. COIs are published here. All journal editorial, review and staff members submit disclosures that are published on the journal site on the COI tab. To my knowledge, no other journal in the market does so.

Our portfolio motto is “building trust through truth.” We were recently recognized as new members of COPE. I don’t doubt COI disclosures were a factor in the decision.

Fast forward and back to Retraction Watch. One morning, I was opening emails to find an article titled “Obesity journal editor’s extensive company ties raise concerns about conflicts of interest in publishing.” This time, my eyebrow is raised. The link led me to an article published by Ed Silverman, a reporter from Pharmalot (note: this is a paywall publication, but I couldn’t resist. The first 30 days are free — remember to end your subscription before the trial is over!).

Long story short, the associate editor-in-chief (AEIC) of the Obesity journal in the article was outed because:

1. The AEIC co-authored a paper in which a manufacturer’s product was mentioned which also included her published financial disclosure (this meets guidelines)
2. The AEIC embellished the article with added benefits of the therapy (I assume all were on label)
3. The company paid a firm to provide writing assistance for the AEIC’s article (huge no-no, even in 2013/14)
4. The AEIC co-authored an editorial praising the company’s pricing model
5. The AEIC did not disclose the financial relationship in the editorial (again, big no-no)

I’m familiar with the adage “repeat advertising works,” but not by and under the guise of a medical journal associate editor-in chief (AEIC) — or anyone on the board or staff of one.

That same week, another article appeared in Pharmalot by the same author with the title “Conflicts of interest are common among editors and authors of psychopharmacology textbooks.’

With my eyebrow raised (again), what I found disconcerting was that it reported:

“… few professional medical journals report conflicts of interest held by their editorial staffs. To wit, 129 of 130 high-impact medical journals required authors to disclose conflicts, but only 16 of those same journals reported potential conflicts held by individual editors. Meanwhile, in half of 26 journal categories examined…not one journal provided public disclosure of conflicts held by individual editors.”

I contacted the author because there is ONE new publisher that DOES require disclosures from researcher/author, journal board and staff. The bar is set high for new journals like BHTY, and I often wonder if legacy complacency would pass ethics requirements if publishers had to submit their journal(s) today.

After a year of false claims, hysteria and politicizing research, we need to get back to basics and infuse trust in a market that must place patient safety and product efficacy before shareholder and venture capital interests.

Shall we challenge the industry to an integrity throwdown?

Tory Cenaj, Owner and Publisher of Partners in Digital Health, Blockchain in Healthcare Today. The views expressed are solely her own and do not reflect those of the editorial board, reviewers or staff members.