On date unavailable, commented:

None

On 2014 Aug 26, Jorge H Ramírez commented:

"Why hasn’t the intensity of scrutiny on financial interests been extended to non-financial interests ie, the ones that are far more prevalent and more strongly associated with publication misconduct?" -- Woolley K.

Response:

Financial conflicts of interests & their association with less retractions is not definitive evidence of more research misconducts by persons like me (i.e., non-financial conflict of interests).

Two open questions:

(1) How many requests of retractions for human research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are not even openly discussed because libel laws? Re: I don't know. http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/keep-libel-laws-out-of-science.html

(2) How many requests of retractions are not even eligible for open scientific debate? Re: I only know one which was requested & retracted by myself. However, question thread remains open.(1)

Addendum to the original PubMed commons post: I just found an article describing similar cases to the situation described (yesterday) in the second question above. URL: http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6985

Jorge H. Ramírez. MD, MSc, PhD. Professor of Pharmacology Universidad del Valle http://chaoticpharmacology.wordpress.com/about/ Twitter: @jorgehernnramre

References

1. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): Requested (Jul 29, 2014) & Retracted by the author (Aug 23, 2014): "Conelly S, et al. Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:1139-1151"] - Question Thread Open. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1144305 Note: raw data is available in this fileset

My conflict of interests related to this response are described in the following URLs: http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1888/rr/763197 http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4386/rr/763130 http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f1880/rr/763200

On 2014 Aug 25, Karen Woolley commented:

.

“No competing interests to declare”…oh really?

The intensity of scrutiny of financial competing interests (eg, pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of research) is understandable – there have been enough high-profile cases of financial interests associated with publication misconduct to warrant concern. But…high-profile does not equate to high-frequency…indeed, the evidence (yes, evidence) on publications retracted for misconduct reveals that most retractions for misconduct occur for publications WITHOUT declared industry support (Woolley KL et al., Curr Med Res Opin 2011). A quick look at Retraction Watch supports the ongoing problem with non-financial interests and publication misconduct. The editors of PLoS Medicine highlighted the dangers of non-financial competing interests years ago:

“Like all human activity, academic research and scientific publishing are inherently subjective, imperfect, and prone to bias, corruption, and self-interest. Indeed, because professional affinities and rivalries, nepotism, scientific or technological competition, religious beliefs, and political or ideological views are often the fuels for our passions and for our careers, private competing interests are perhaps even more potent than financial ones.” The PLoS Medicine Editors (2008) Making Sense of Non-Financial Competing Interests. PLoS Med 5(9): e199. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050199

When authors disclose “no competing interests to declare” what does that mean? Who is checking that nothing means nothing? Why hasn’t the intensity of scrutiny on financial interests been extended to non-financial interests ie, the ones that are far more prevalent and more strongly associated with publication misconduct?

Our risk-management strategy for reducing the risks of interest-driven biases is rather risky. When will we prioritise strategies to manage the most prevalent and dangerous interests – the non-financial ones?

Professor Karen Woolley PhD Certified Medical Publication Professional (Twitter: @kwproscribe)

Disclosures

Non-financial: Advocate for ethical publication practices, regardless of sponsor (for-profit, not-for-profit), Director of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals and Chair of its Asia-Pacific Advisory Committee; active member of other not-for-profit organisations providing education on ethical publication practices. Author of peer-reviewed publications on ethical publication practices.

Financial: Employee of ProScribe - part of the Envision Pharma Group (providing ethical publication planning and medical writing services to authors and sponsors worldwide - we do NOT ghostwrite)

On 2014 Aug 25, Karen Woolley commented:

.

“No competing interests to declare”…oh really?

The intensity of scrutiny of financial competing interests (eg, pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of research) is understandable – there have been enough high-profile cases of financial interests associated with publication misconduct to warrant concern. But…high-profile does not equate to high-frequency…indeed, the evidence (yes, evidence) on publications retracted for misconduct reveals that most retractions for misconduct occur for publications WITHOUT declared industry support (Woolley KL et al., Curr Med Res Opin 2011). A quick look at Retraction Watch supports the ongoing problem with non-financial interests and publication misconduct. The editors of PLoS Medicine highlighted the dangers of non-financial competing interests years ago:

“Like all human activity, academic research and scientific publishing are inherently subjective, imperfect, and prone to bias, corruption, and self-interest. Indeed, because professional affinities and rivalries, nepotism, scientific or technological competition, religious beliefs, and political or ideological views are often the fuels for our passions and for our careers, private competing interests are perhaps even more potent than financial ones.” The PLoS Medicine Editors (2008) Making Sense of Non-Financial Competing Interests. PLoS Med 5(9): e199. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050199

When authors disclose “no competing interests to declare” what does that mean? Who is checking that nothing means nothing? Why hasn’t the intensity of scrutiny on financial interests been extended to non-financial interests ie, the ones that are far more prevalent and more strongly associated with publication misconduct?

Our risk-management strategy for reducing the risks of interest-driven biases is rather risky. When will we prioritise strategies to manage the most prevalent and dangerous interests – the non-financial ones?

Professor Karen Woolley PhD Certified Medical Publication Professional (Twitter: @kwproscribe)

Disclosures

Non-financial: Advocate for ethical publication practices, regardless of sponsor (for-profit, not-for-profit), Director of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals and Chair of its Asia-Pacific Advisory Committee; active member of other not-for-profit organisations providing education on ethical publication practices. Author of peer-reviewed publications on ethical publication practices.

Financial: Employee of ProScribe - part of the Envision Pharma Group (providing ethical publication planning and medical writing services to authors and sponsors worldwide - we do NOT ghostwrite)