IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0219564.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflicts of interest disclosure policies among Chinese medical journals: A cross-sectional study

Author

Listed:
  • Jiayi Zhu
  • Ji Sun

Abstract

Importance: Conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies are critical to enhancing the integrity of research. However, it is unclear how Chinese medical journals interpret and enforce such policies. Objectives: The goal of this investigation is to determine the current status of COI disclosure policy enforcement in Chinese medical journals and to promote comprehensive COI policies. Methods: In this cross-sectional study conducted from September 1st to October 29th 2017, journal instructions, websites and print issues of journals indexed by the Core Journals of China (version 2014), in the medical and health sector, were reviewed to identify whether COI disclosure policies existed and how complete these policies were. Results: Of 248 eligible journals, 78 (31%) mentioned COI policies; 9 (4%) applied standardized disclosure forms; 18 (7%) required disclosure statements in articles; 4 (2%) mentioned policy bases; none validated disclosed COIs; 2 (1%) mentioned how they dealt with breaches; 18 (7%) involved the management of disclosed COIs; and 62 (25%) and 55 (22%) noted financial and nonfinancial COIs, respectively. Seventy-eight journals (31%) mentioned COIs in research and authors’ obligation towards disclosure; 2 (1%) and 6 (2%) mentioned family members’ and institutional COIs, respectively. Twenty-two and 11 journals mentioned at least one form of financial and nonfinancial COI type in research, respectively. Seven journals (3%) required disclosure of the source of financial support in research, but no journals mentioned the amount of support. Seven (3%) and 12 (5%) journals mentioned COIs in the editorial process and peer-review, respectively. Clinical journals (45%) paid more attention to COI policies than non-clinical journals. Conclusions: Approximately one-third of Chinese medical journals had COI policies, and of the journals that mentioned financial COIs most required nonfinancial COIs. However, the extent to which journals implemented COI policies was insufficient. There is a generic lack of standardized disclosure forms and management of COIs in most journals. The subject and details of COIs involved in the editorial and peer-review process received less attention than those in research.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiayi Zhu & Ji Sun, 2019. "Conflicts of interest disclosure policies among Chinese medical journals: A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219564
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219564
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219564&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0219564?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. Khaled Shawwa & Romy Kallas & Serge Koujanian & Arnav Agarwal & Ignacio Neumann & Paul Alexander & Kari A O Tikkinen & Gordon Guyatt & Elie A Akl, 2016. "Requirements of Clinical Journals for Authors’ Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest: A Cross Sectional Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Alexander Ivanov & Beata A Kaczkowska & Saadat A Khan & Jean Ho & Morteza Tavakol & Ashok Prasad & Geetha Bhumireddy & Allan F Beall & Igor Klem & Parag Mehta & William M Briggs & Terrence J Sacchi & , 2017. "Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    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. Mina Moradzadeh & Shahram Sedghi & Sirous Panahi, 2023. "Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 279-321, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Lisa A Bero & Quinn Grundy, 2016. "Why Having a (Nonfinancial) Interest Is Not a Conflict of Interest," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-8, December.
    3. Leuz, Christian & Malani, Anup & Muhn, Maximilian & Jakab, László, 2022. "Do conflict of interests disclosures work? Evidence from citations in medical journals," CFS Working Paper Series 702, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    4. Sorana D Bolboacă & Diana-Victoria Buhai & Maria Aluaș & Adriana E Bulboacă, 2019. "Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, June.

    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:pone00:0219564. 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.