Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats. Issue 8 (26th August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kojima, Takako; Green, Joseph; Barron, J Patrick
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 5:Issue 8(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-08-26
• Subjects: conflict of interest -- editorial secretariats -- education and training -- publication ethics; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007957
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Medical journals in Japan generally have appropriate policies regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI). However, COI management depends on the staff members of each journal's editorial secretariat. This study's objectives were to find out (A) whether COI disclosure and the journal's role in it are clearly understood by the journal's secretariat staff, (B) how much experience the editorial secretariat has in actually handling issues related to disclosure and (C) what kind of help or support they need. Setting and design: In January 2014, questionnaires were sent to the editorial secretariats of journal-publishing societies belonging to the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS). Participants: The response rate was 100%, and the respondents represented 121 journals published by the 118 JAMS member societies (at the time of the survey). Primary and secondary outcome measures: Information was collected on the history of COI policies and on how those policies were implemented. At the end of the questionnaire, there was an open-ended call for comments. Results: Compulsory COI disclosure began between 2010 and 2013 for 60.3% of the journals (73/121). Handling of COI issues was not uniform: 17.4% (21/121) of respondents do not pursue cases of dubious disclosure, and 47.9% (58/121) do not require COI disclosures from editorial board members. Very few of the editorial secretariats had clearly-stated consequences for violations of COI-disclosure policy (33/121, 27.3%), and only 28.9% offered COI education (35/121). Respondents' comments indicated that uniform, easily-searchable guidance regarding COI policies and implementation would be welcome. Conclusions: Although commitment is widespread, policy implementation is inconsistent and COI experience is lacking. Clear, easy-to-use guidelines are desired by many societies. The JAMS is to be commended for supporting this country-wide investigation; other countries and regions are encouraged to perform similar investigations to respond to needs regarding COI management.