IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0127362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential Conflicts of Interest of Editorial Board Members from Five Leading Spine Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Stein J Janssen
  • Annelien L Bredenoord
  • Wouter Dhert
  • Marinus de Kleuver
  • F Cumhur Oner
  • Jorrit-Jan Verlaan

Abstract

Conflicts of interest arising from ties between pharmaceutical industry and physicians are common and may bias research. The extent to which these ties exist among editorial board members of medical journals is not known. This study aims to determine the prevalence and financial magnitude of potential conflicts of interest among editorial board members of five leading spine journals. The editorial boards of: The Spine Journal; Spine; European Spine Journal; Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine; and Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques were extracted on January 2013 from the journals’ websites. Disclosure statements were retrieved from the 2013 disclosure index of the North American Spine Society; the program of the 20th International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques; the program of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Scoliosis Research Society; the program of the AOSpine global spine congress; the presentations of the 2013 Annual Eurospine meeting; and the disclosure index of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Names of the editorial board members were compared with the individuals who completed a disclosure for one of these indexes. Disclosures were extracted when full names matched. Two hundred and ten (29%) of the 716 identified editorial board members reported a potential conflict of interest and 154 (22%) reported nothing to disclose. The remaining 352 (49%) editorial board members had no disclosure statement listed for one of the indexes. Eighty-nine (42%) of the 210 editorial board members with a potential conflict of interest reported a financial relationship of more than $10,000 during the prior year. This finding confirms that potential conflicts of interest exist in editorial boards which might influence the peer review process and can result in bias. Academia and medical journals in particular should be aware of this and strive to improve transparency of the review process. We emphasize recommendations that contribute to achieving this goal.

Suggested Citation

  • Stein J Janssen & Annelien L Bredenoord & Wouter Dhert & Marinus de Kleuver & F Cumhur Oner & Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, 2015. "Potential Conflicts of Interest of Editorial Board Members from Five Leading Spine Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127362
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127362
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127362&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0127362?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. In-Uck Park & Mike W. Peacey & Marcus R. Munafò, 2014. "Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review," Nature, Nature, vol. 506(7486), pages 93-96, February.
    2. Lipworth, Wendy L. & Kerridge, Ian H. & Carter, Stacy M. & Little, Miles, 2011. "Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1056-1063, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Barrios & Joaquín Alfonso & José Miguel Lloris & Eduardo Hevia & Jesús Burgos, 2018. "Analysis of the conflicts of interest disclosed by the program reviewers of the scoliosis research society (SRS) congresses, 2010-2014," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, October.
    2. S Scott Graham & Zoltan P Majdik & Dave Clark & Molly M Kessler & Tristin Brynn Hooker, 2020. "Relationships among commercial practices and author conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-11, July.
    3. Victoria S S Wong & Lauro Nathaniel Avalos & Michael L Callaham, 2019. "Industry payments to physician journal editors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, February.
    4. Waqas Haque & Abu Minhajuddin & Arjun Gupta & Deepak Agrawal, 2018. "Conflicts of interest of editors of medical journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Day, Theodore Eugene, 2015. "The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1266-1270.
    2. Lin Zhang & Beibei Sun & Fei Shu & Ying Huang, 2022. "Comparing paper level classifications across different methods and systems: an investigation of Nature publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7633-7651, December.
    3. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    4. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    5. Hopp, Christian & Hoover, Gary A., 2017. "How prevalent is academic misconduct in management research?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 73-81.
    6. Ricardo Ocaña-Riola, 2016. "The Use of Statistics in Health Sciences: Situation Analysis and Perspective," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 8(2), pages 204-219, October.
    7. Yanwei Jia & Jussi Keppo & Ville Satopää, 2023. "Herding in Probabilistic Forecasts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2713-2732, May.
    8. Gary A. Hoover & Christian Hopp, 2017. "What Crisis? Taking Stock of Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct," CESifo Working Paper Series 6611, CESifo.
    9. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    10. Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "The Hawthorne effect in journal peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 857-862, June.
    11. Mingliang Yue & Hongbo Tang & Fan Liu & Tingcan Ma, 2021. "Consistency index: measuring the performances of scholar journal reviewers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7183-7195, August.
    12. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    13. Richard R Snell, 2015. "Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    14. Sven E. Hug & Mirjam Aeschbach, 2020. "Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Xiancheng Li & Wenge Rong & Haoran Shi & Jie Tang & Zhang Xiong, 2018. "The impact of conference ranking systems in computer science: a comparative regression analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 879-907, August.
    16. Matan Shelomi, 2014. "Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-10, April.
    17. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 695-715, February.
    18. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Zhao, Zhi-Dan & Chen, Jiahao & Lu, Yichuan & Zhao, Na & Jiang, Dazhi & Wang, Bing-Hong, 2021. "Dynamic patterns of open review process," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).

    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:pone00:0127362. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.