MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136129490 · doi:10.4103/0973-1296.62888

Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals: The world association of medical editors position on a challenging problem

2010· article· en· W2136129490 on OpenAlex
Ferris Le, Fletcher Rh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacognosy Magazine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConflict of interestCredibilityWonderPublishingPublic relationsPolitical scienceWrongdoingPsychologyLawSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conflict of interest in medical publishing exists when a participant's private interests compete with his or her responsibilities to the scientific community, readers and society. While conflict of interest is common, it reaches the level of concern when 'a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual's behavior or judgment was motivated by his or her competing interests'.[1] Having a competing interest does not, in itself, imply wrongdoing. However, it can undermine the credibility of research results and damage public trust in medical journals. In recent years, the extent of conflict of interest in medical journal articles has been increasingly recognized. Medical journals and the popular media have published numerous examples of competing interests that seemed to have biased published reports.[2–4] Organizations have expressed concern for the effects of conflicts of interest on research,[5] publication[1,6,7] teaching[8] and continuing medical and nursing education.[9] The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) is one of the institutions engaged in this discussion. WAME was established in 1995[10,11] to facilitate worldwide cooperation and communication among editors of peer-reviewed journals, improve editorial standards and promote professionalism in medical editing.[12] Membership in WAME is open to all editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals worldwide; small journals in resource-poor countries are well represented. As of December 2009, WAME had 1595 individual members representing 965 journals in 92 countries. WAME has broad participation as there are no dues and WAME activities are largely carried out through the member list serve and the member password protected website. In March 2009, WAME released an updated policy statement, ‘Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals’.[1] It details the issues WAME believes journals should address when establishing their own policies for conflict of interest. The editors of this journal thought that the issues were important enough to share with its readers. A summary of the statement is presented in Table 1 and the full statement[1] can be found on WAME's website.[12] Table 1 Summary of Key Elements for Peer-Reviewed Medical Journal's Conflict of Interest Policies

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.462
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.102 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it