Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva · Judit Dobránszki · Radha Holla Bhar · Charles T. Mehlman

41 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Bioethical Inquiry

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Publishing and Open Access Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

Editors have increasing pressure as scholarly publishing tries to shore up trust and reassure academics and the public that traditional peer review is robust, fail-safe, and corrective. Hidden conflicts of interest (COIs) may skew the fairness of the publishing process because they could allow the status of personal or professional relationships to positively influence the outcome of peer review or reduce the processing period of this process. Not all authors have such privileged relationships. In academic journals, editors usually have very specialized skills and are selected as agents of trust, entrusted with the responsibility of serving as quality control gate-keepers during peer review. In many cases, editors form extensive networks, either with other professionals, industry, academic bodies, journals, or publishers. Such networks and relationships may influence their decisions or even their subjectivity towards a set of submitting authors, paper, or institute, ultimately influencing the peer review process. These positions and relationships are not simply aspects of a curriculum, they are potential COIs. Thus, on the editorial board of all academic journals, editors should carry a COI statement that reflects their past history, as well as actual relationships and positions that they have, as these may influence their editorial functions.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

References

2010Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases 2013Open access: The true cost of science publishing 1995Publication Decisions Revisited: The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa 2011Retracted Science and the Retraction Index 2013Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations 2014Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review 2009Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey 2015Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting

Cited by

2023Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the Value of Reflexivity Statements in Research 2020Curriculum vitae: challenges and potential solutions 2021A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers 2021Do Legitimate Publishers Benefit or Profit from Error, Misconduct or Fraud?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.