Comments on the proposed ICMJE Disclosure Form

Return to ICMJE

Displaying 76 - 80 of 129 comments
  • Koji Dohi
    EMC KK
    Role(s): Other
      • Mecal writing agency
    Date Submitted: Monday, March 9, 2020 - 23:58

    It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
    • Yes

    The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
    • No
    Comments: Could you make an entry field for authors who are employees of pharmaceutical company? They received salary to be disclosed but it is not clearly specified in the form. They are always confused. Thank you.

  • Gregory Hess, MD MBA MSc
    Drexel College of Medicine, Drexel University
    Role(s):
    • An author who publishes work in medical journals
    • A health care professional
    • A patient
    • A reader of medical journals
    • Other
      • Invited Reviewer
    Date Submitted: Monday, March 9, 2020 - 16:42

    It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
    • Yes
    Comments: I support the changes you have proposed. I also strongly believe that ICMJE should significantly tighten the definitions of who qualifies to be an author. In my experience many companies and institutions very loosely interpret "Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work," - particularly the latter text. The criteria should be shortened and/or positive and negative examples accompanying the criteria would be helpful. Lastly, enforcement with significant penalties for those who violate ICMJE guidelines would serve as a potential deterrent of "ghost" authors, etc. Thank you for the consideration of my input and perspective.

    The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
    • No
    Comments: From a colleague: "Where I part ways with the authors is their statement: "Many stakeholders — editors, peer reviewers, clinicians, educators, policymakers, patients, and the public — rely on the disclosure of authors’ relationships and activities to inform their assessments." One can only speculate about what disclosures mean for the validity of the science in a manuscript. When one relies on disclosures, you open the door to your own prejudices affecting your assessment. As I noted in my most recent article: Kesselheim et al. found that industry sponsorship appreciably and negatively influenced the perception of the quality of the work and the willingness of clinicians to believe and act on the (clinical) trial findings. In this case, the potential hazard for patients is clear if their treating physician relies on sponsorship or affiliation to judge whether a treatment might be helpful for patients. So, I always caution researchers to rely on their scientific assessments. Disclosure has a role in keeping things honest, but I have never found it helpful in evaluating a scientific finding. Certainly, one can’t rely on it."

  • Thomas E Finucane
    Massachusetts General Hospital
    Role(s): An author who publishes work in medical journals
    Date Submitted: Saturday, February 29, 2020 - 21:28

    It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
    • No
    Comments: The CEO of the ADA reports no conflict of interest when authoring an Annals paper calling for strict glycemic targets. The ADA gets millions from industry and strict glycemic targets drive a lot of sales. Who will judge whether the relationship is directly, topically, or not related to the topic? Patient advocacy groups require serious attention.

    The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
    • No
    Comments: The information that is collected is from the author. I'm hoping for a framework that addresses the well-documented human tendency to overestimate your own moral success.

  • Paul J Martin
    1948
    Role(s):
    • An author who publishes work in medical journals
    • A health care professional
    • A patient
    • A reader of medical journals
    Date Submitted: Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 11:55

    It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
    • Yes

    The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
    • Yes
    Comments: This revision represents a quantum leap in the utility of the information by drawing appropriate distinctions between directly and and topically related activities and by drawing distinctions between current financial benefit (e.g., licenses and royalties) and potential future financial benefit (e.g., patents). Investigators could easily maintain a complete list of all relationships and then simply check the appropriate boxes for directly and topically related activities when manuscripts are submitted. Those that are neither directly nor topically related could be retained by checking both "no" boxes or could be deleted from the submitted form. I suggest that you draw a distinction between stock ownership and stock options. The latter represents potential remuneration for the activity, while the former does not. I assume that the form will be converted to an electronic format when adopted. I strongly recommend that you beta test the electronic form before implementation.

  • Kyoko Kelly
    AstraZeneca
    Role(s): Other
      • Employee involved in medical publications of company's sponsored clinical studies
    Date Submitted: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 - 12:21

    It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
    • Yes
    Comments: Please indicate where present/recent past employment (eg of a for-profit company that might financially benefit from the research being reported) should be indicated. It was not clear in the current version of the form; I presume it belongs in the last "other" row of the revised form. Based on my experience, employee authors may not realize this is where it should be disclosed.

    The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
    • Yes

Pages