More Author Disclosure: Solution or Absolution?
N. King,J. Kaufman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e31826cc102
2012-11-01
Epidemiology
Abstract:Until recently, Epidemiology maintained a straightforward policy on conflicts of interest, asking authors to report their place of employment and the study’s sources of funding, as well as any other information that could raise questions about a paper’s credibility if disclosed later. “We will be minimalists,” explained an editorial in 2006. Authors were required to identify those conflicts that might be “relevant to their work and interpretation of their findings,” but the journal did not define “relevance.” Instead, the editor noted, “We put that responsibility on our authors, where we think it belongs.” As of January 2012, a new policy was imposed on the journal by the publisher, Wolters Kluwer. Authors must now complete and submit an extensive questionnaire based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.” Authors must check through several pages of questions about potential conflicts of interest (COI), including financial, consultant, institutional, and other relationships. The impact of COI on research is extensive and well documented: industry-sponsored research produces overwhelmingly pro-industry conclusions, and there is substantial evidence of selective reporting, suppression of negative findings, and other forms of publication bias. Moreover, these problems may be amplified through systematic reviews or meta-analyses, most of which fail to report or take into account COI disclosures in their component studies. It is therefore easy to understand the superficial appeal of more elaborate COI disclosure rituals. Disclosure purports to provide relevant information to health scientists, patients, and journal editors, to help them judge the veracity and reliability of research findings. This contention led to a major revision of the ICMJE COI guidelines a decade ago and also underlies the “sunshine” provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, mandating the publication of “transparency reports” that publicly disclose industry payments to physicians and teaching hospitals. Although the ideals of transparency and empowerment of health information consumers are laudable, some of the appeal of disclosure can also be viewed as self-serving. For many stakeholders, disclosure serves as an inoculation against more systemic change— an endurably burdensome alternative to real critique and reform, such as intolerance of the conflicts in the first place. As James Surowiecki noted in reference to the financial industry, “Transparency is well and good, but accuracy and objectivity are even better. Wall Street doesn’t have to keep confessing its sins. It just has to stop committing them.” In the case of biomedical research, disclosure allows journals to continue to publish sponsored research, thus avoiding taking any kind of stand against the more fundamental dilemmas of commercial science, a system that buoys journal impact factors and revenue.