Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/11375/23867
Title: | Translating Editor COI Values to Action: The Missing Link |
Authors: | Jaffer, Anushka |
Advisor: | Brouwers, Melissa |
Department: | Health Research Methodology |
Keywords: | Editor;Conflict of Interest;Policy |
Publication Date: | 2018 |
Abstract: | Introduction: Conflict of interest (COI) exists when an individual in the publication process has a competing interest that could compromise their publication process responsibility. COI is commonly associated with authors and less so with editors. Many organizations (e.g. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)) provide resources and recommendations for addressing COIs at medical journals. However, there are no data describing journals’ utilization of these resources for editor COI policy development or adoption, and little data on the value of editor COI policies. This study aimed to understand current editor COI practices and editors’ perceptions of COI policies, along with barriers to their implementation. Methods: An online survey developed in LimeSurveyTM was distributed to editorial board members of oncology and health care sciences and services journals to measure respondents’ attitudes about COI definitions and features and COI policy experience; barriers to implementing editor COI policies; and editors’ perceptions of COI policies. Frequency analysis of survey data was conducted. Free-text responses were summarized. Results: Response rate was 20.2% (66/327), and comprised complete and partial survey respondents. The majority of respondents were editors-in-chief. Overall, respondents agreed that defined WAME COI domains were important components of an editor COI policy. Nearly 50% of respondents belonged to journals with existing editor COI policies, which they continued to use. Nearly 25% were unaware of the current editor COI policy status at their journal. Few implementation barriers were identified, the most common being challenges with verification of disclosures. Overall, respondents did not report strong attitudes in favour of or against editor COI policies, but respondents agreed that journals with an editor COI policy were more credible and trustworthy. Conclusion: This study shows that editor COI policy development and utilization is not a universal standard of practice and suggests that recognition of the value of an editor COI policy may not be widespread among editorial board members. |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/11375/23867 |
Appears in Collections: | Open Access Dissertations and Theses |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Jaffer_Anushka_M_2018May_MScHRM.pdf | 1.11 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.