Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Possible conflicts of interest in medical publishing

2013; Elsevier BV; Volume: 26; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.03.010

1472-6491

Jacques Cohen, Gedis Grudzinksas, Martin H. Johnson,

Health and Medical Research Impacts

The issues raised by Norbert Gleicher in his provocative commentary on possible conflicts of interest in medical publishing (Gleicher, 2013Gleicher, N., 2013. Avoiding currently unavoidable conflicts of interest in medical publishing by transparent peer review. Reprod. Biomed. Online 26, 411–415.Google Scholar) can stir deep-seated emotions. One must give serious attention to his comments, not least because the writer was himself an editor-in-chief for many years of the first specialized IVF journal, published in 1983 (Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, renamed Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics in 1992). Indeed the issues raised are ones with which we and our publishers are regularly in debate. So what are the key issues and what are our views as editors on them? We personally would prefer to referee openly and be known to the authors, but we understand the arguments against such an approach. We have discussed giving reviewers the option of being identified, or indeed of giving authors the right to request ‘open’ reviews, with reviewers being allowed to refuse. The problem is that already it is difficult to get good reviewers to act on the timescale desirable. There are times when we need to ask over 10 referees in order to get two sound reports. All the indications are that open reviewing would make this process more difficult and more prolonged. So authors have a trade off. Do they want rapid decisions or open ones? We are currently consulting with Elsevier as to the feasibility of automating such an option at the submission stage. We would love to publish the reports together with authors’ responses, but this is not without difficulty. Some reports are of poor quality and we ignore them or override them or get additional reviews. Should they all be made available? If publicly available, will they be anonymous or not? However, this issue is already under discussion with our publishers as to its feasibility – so watch this space! For about 30% of the submitted papers we take an editorial decision to reject without reviewing. However, we will also consult one another or our specialist Section Editors or statistical advisors before doing so. Reasons for direct editorial rejection vary but can include ethical, linguistic, plagiarism and statistical grounds as well as, mostly, not being sufficiently novel to warrant adding to the literature ‘noise’, or being simply inappropriate for our journal. Most importantly, such decisions are not anonymous and the authors know which editor to contact and to write to make a case for a changed decision! Between 2000–2009 RBM Online did go some way towards this, as we published all submitted abstracts prior to review. As editors we liked that as it showed courage and swiftness and it was generally very well received by the journal’s users. Once the submitted abstracts disappeared and there was no paper to be found later, it was an obvious conclusion that reviewers or the editor had declined to publish. This was part of Bob Edwards’ vision. However, we are delighted to be able to announce that from the beginning of March this year, authors submitting manuscripts will be asked whether they wish to have their abstracts published pending an editorial decision! We take our responsibilities seriously and do not just rubber stamp our reviewers’ reports but engage with their arguments and criticisms, and where necessary may override them. We are supported by an excellent team of associate, emeritus and section editors to whom we turn for support and advice. We agree mostly with Norbert Gleicher (see our detailed editorial on this topic published last year; Editorial, 2012EditorialThe uses and abuses of bibliometrics.Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2012; 24: 485-486Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar). We already publish on our webpage a range of other impact algorithms. However, we also have to ‘play the game’ to some extent – hence we do solicit reviews – although primarily because these are useful to our readers, and, in the case of Young Investigator Reviews, to our writers too! The fact is that peer review and editorial behavior have been more or less constant over many decades, and while many of Gleicher’s ’new’ suggestions have been tried out by journals (as there are so many it may not have been noticeable), most have collapsed after a while. It is also instructive that whilst Gleicher himself was an editor for 25 years, he did not make many of the changes he is now suggesting. This is not a criticism, as we agree with much of what he says, but a consequence of the practical reality of editorship! However, the changing times we live in now demand more openness. Freedom of Information Acts open up public, industrial and political programmes to scrutiny, and informational sources, such as wikileaks, receive worldwide support. ‘Public Consultations’ abound: in the UK through the HFEA being a leader there (Franklin, 2013Franklin S. The HFEA in context.Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2013; 26: 310-312Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar, Murdoch, 2013Murdoch A. The legacy of the HFEA.Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2013; 26: 307-309Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar, Johnson, 2013Johnson M.H. HFEA reprieved – for the moment!.Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2013; 26: 303-304Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar). Social openness is practiced by many millions through their enthusiastic use of online sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and ‘behind the scenes’ reality shows top the television charts. It must be time to incorporate some of these changes in the scientific editing process. Achieving a balance between the unrestrained exhibitionism of reality television and the seemingly rather closed current order is the challenge facing authors, reviewers and editors alike. We are working with Elsevier to try and achieve this aim in RBM Online.