IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002046.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Kasenda
  • Erik von Elm
  • John J You
  • Anette Blümle
  • Yuki Tomonaga
  • Ramon Saccilotto
  • Alain Amstutz
  • Theresa Bengough
  • Joerg J Meerpohl
  • Mihaela Stegert
  • Kelechi K Olu
  • Kari A O Tikkinen
  • Ignacio Neumann
  • Alonso Carrasco-Labra
  • Markus Faulhaber
  • Sohail M Mulla
  • Dominik Mertz
  • Elie A Akl
  • Dirk Bassler
  • Jason W Busse
  • Ignacio Ferreira-González
  • Francois Lamontagne
  • Alain Nordmann
  • Viktoria Gloy
  • Heike Raatz
  • Lorenzo Moja
  • Shanil Ebrahim
  • Stefan Schandelmaier
  • Xin Sun
  • Per O Vandvik
  • Bradley C Johnston
  • Martin A Walter
  • Bernard Burnand
  • Matthias Schwenkglenks
  • Lars G Hemkens
  • Heiner C Bucher
  • Gordon H Guyatt
  • Matthias Briel

Abstract

Background: Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees. Methods and Findings: We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner’s right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements. Conclusions: Publication agreements constraining academic authors’ independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol. In a document analysis of trial protocols and publications, Erik von Elm and colleagues investigate the potential impact of publication agreements between industry sponsors and academic investigators.Why Was This Study Done?: What Did the Researchers Do and Find?: What Do These Findings Mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Kasenda & Erik von Elm & John J You & Anette Blümle & Yuki Tomonaga & Ramon Saccilotto & Alain Amstutz & Theresa Bengough & Joerg J Meerpohl & Mihaela Stegert & Kelechi K Olu & Kari A O Tikki, 2016. "Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002046
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002046
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002046&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.