Making sense of non-financial competing interests

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 5, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 1299-1301

  Barbour, Virginia ^a   Clark, Jocalyn ^a   Peiperl, Larry ^a   Veitch, Emma ^a   Wong, Mai ^a   Yamey, Gavin ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; ETHICS; FETUS DEATH; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; VIRUS INFECTION; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; PUBLICATION;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DISCLOSURE; FINANCIAL SUPPORT; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 70349995680     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050199     Document Type: Editorial

References (13)

1. Cain DM, Detsky AS (2008) Everyone's a little biased (even physicians). JAMA 299: 2893-2895.
2. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS (1998) Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 338: 101-105.
3. Barnes DE, Bero LA (1998) Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 279: 1566-1570.
4. Vandenbroucke JP (2000) Competing interests and controversy about third generation oral contraceptives. BMJ 320: 381.
5. Smith R (2002) Making progress with competing interests. BMJ 325: 1375-1376.
6. Smith R (2006) Conflicts of interest: How money clouds objectivity. JRSM 99: 292-297.
7. Haivas I, Waechter F, Schroter S, Smith R (2004) Editors declaration of their own conflicts of interest: A survey. CMAJ 171: 475-476.
8. The PLoS Medicine Editors (2005) How does PLoS Medicine manage competing interests? PLoS Med 2: e88. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020088
9. Luborsky L, Diguer L, Seligman DA, Rosenthal R, Krause ED, et al. (1999) The researcher's own therapy allegiance: A "wild card" in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clin Psychol Sci Prac 6: 95-106.
10. Goldsmith LA, Blalock EN, Bobkova H, Hall RP 3rd (2006) Picking your peers. J Invest Dermatol 126: 1429-1430.
11. Grimm D (2005) Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published. Science 309: 1974.
12. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N (2006) Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 295: 314-317.
13. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS (2006) Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 4: 13.