NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

Study looks at possible publication bias/conflict of interest in medical journals

Posted By

Tags

A study published in the BMJ analyzed “the extent to which funding and study design are associated with high reprint orders.”  The authors explain:

Reprints of published articles are a potential valuable means of disseminating information. Many individuals and organisations may request reprints, including the authors of the articles themselves, other members of the scientific community, study sponsors, and pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical industry is thought to be the largest purchaser of reprints. After gifts and drug samples, reprints are the most common form of promotional material circulated among doctors by pharmaceutical companies.

Because pharmaceutical companies may buy from journals copies of articles they have funded, reprints of published articles have been suggested as a possible source of conflict of interest that could lead to publication bias. Orders can be worth large sums of money and could potentially influence the chance of a paper being accepted, especially with the current organisational framework, under which editors can be responsible for the journal’s content and its finances. Studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry are also more likely to be published in higher impact factor journals than are studies without industry funding.

So they wrote to the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and BMJ to get data on reprint orders.

It is troubling that only the British journals – the Lancet and the BMJ – agreed to provide that data.  None of the US journals shared their data.

Here’s a synopsis of what the researchers found:

  • High reprint articles, irrespective of journal, were significantly more likely to be sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.
  •  Some of the reprint orders were substantial, equating to a large amount of income generated. Thus reprint orders could potentially be a source of publication bias, although our study was not designed with this in mind.
  • “because reprints provide considerable sources of revenue, we would suggest that data on reprint orders should be made more available generally and that specific data for reprint orders should be included with individual articles.”

 

You might also like

Comments

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.