Date Submitted: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 11:48
It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
No
Comments: It is uncertain for this "Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing,or educational events," whether to include those from non-profits (e.g. universities, professional foundations) as well as for-profits.
Same for this: "Support for attending meetings and/or travel." And what if one's one department pays for travel directly related?
The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
Yes
John Waterton
University of Manchester
Role(s):
An author who publishes work in medical journals
A patient
A reader of medical journals
Date Submitted: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 06:03
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: I have some comments on how affiliation and salary are disclosed.
A high-impact paper can have substantial financial consequences. For an academic author, it may bring increased salary and improved career prospects. For the institution it brings prestige. Press coverage may attract students to universities and patients to hospitals. Grant income may flow. Companies may attract business and investment.
My own experience, working both in academia and formerly in Pharma, is that journals can have different approaches to such disclosures.
- Many journals appear to feel that their responsibility to disclose affiliations is discharged simply by footnoting affiliations to the author list. This may be correct, although when authors move institutions it may not capture all the relevant affiliations which were current during the time window of the study. Also it does not distinguish non-salaried (honorary) positions from salaried positions, which may be important.
- Other journals have very stringent conflict-of-interest rules which seem even to exclude the possibility of a scientist or physician, employed by a for-profit company, publishing the results of their research conducted in the normal course of their duties.
I welcome the move from "Conflict-of-Interest" to "Disclosure" and I suggest that authors should disclose their institutional affiliations, from study inception to date of disclosure, distinguishing salaried from non-salaried affiliations.
Steven Rizk
Role(s):
A health care professional
A patient
A reader of medical journals
Other
Biotech Medical Affairs Professional
Date Submitted: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 00:20
It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
Yes
Comments: I would be even more clear in the table that grants to institutions also should be reported. I know it is defined above. However, many authors still consider the fact that they do not receive any payment directly as a reason to not disclose the relationship.
The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
Yes
Kristen Perry
MediTech Media
Role(s):
A reader of medical journals
Other
Medical Writer
Date Submitted: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - 17:01
It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
No
Comments: I understand that the terms "directly related" and "topically related" are meant to improve clarity, but they are confusing and could be simplified. I also think the document is too wordy. Lastly, by having discrete categories for disclosure type, the form risks missing activities and confusing authors. Overall, I think that by asking the author to categorise their disclosures in multiple ways - i.e. directly related, topically related, grants or contracts, consulting fees, etc - the form makes it more difficult for authors to be open and clear about their activities. As raised in the editorial: I would suggest the ICJME, perhaps with funding from pharmaceutical donors keen to pledge their commitment to transparency, could create a repository themselves. The repository would include a detailed form allowing authors to make their disclosures freely and openly, but with category prompts (e.g. grants, honoraria, etc) to ensure nothing is missed. This means the disclosures would not be linked to any specific piece of work, and would remove the issues with "direct" and "topical" relatedness. With each publication, journals could publish all disclosures (e.g. historical and current, related and non-related), a subset based on time frame, or perhaps a relevant subset selected by the editor. Regardless, all online articles could contain a link back to the author's full profile in the repository.
The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
Yes
Comments: I think the information is appropriate, but the form does not achieve what it's trying to.
Laura J. Fochtmann, MD, MBI
Stony Brook University
Role(s):
An author who publishes work in medical journals
A health care professional
A patient
A reader of medical journals
Other
Guideline developer
Date Submitted: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - 15:18
It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
No
Comments: The delineation of direct vs. topical relationships is not at all clear. A paper may focus on a specific hypothesis yet include general topical information as background in the introduction or discussion. For direct activities, the delineation of initial planning and conceptualization phase is also unclear. For example, if a paper related to a longitudinal study with a 20 y followup, would 20+ years of disclosures be needed? It is not clear why serving on a guideline panel or data safety monitoring board would be a potential conflict, particularly if uncompensated. It is also not clear why giving academic lectures with travel and honorarium funded by the university would be a potential conflict.
The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
No
Comments: Although the form seems quite detailed (perhaps overly so), there are significant gaps. For example, limiting potential conflicts to direct and topical content seems insufficient. To use the diabetes example on the form, this implies that an individual could have major industry relationships, stock or patents regarding other medical conditions that would not need to be declared. Conflicts unrelated to diseases or treatments may also be relevant as medicine becomes more and more technological (e.g., artificial intelligence, electronic records and health apps). The form also does not require disclosing whether specific activities (e.g., lectures, consulting, travel, expert testimony, other services) are compensated by commercial entities. Many conflict of interest policies also require disclosures of significant familial relationships to industry (e.g., spousal employment by relevant commercial entities) and providing reporting thresholds or ranges of compensation received (e.g., a $300 non-profit honoraria is quite different than $300,000 of commercial consulting fees).
Return to ICMJE
Displaying 101 - 105 of 129 commentsIt is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
It is easy to understand what the ICMJE Disclosure Form is asking to be disclosed.
The information collected by the ICMJE Disclosure Form is appropriate.
Pages