Perceptions of conflict of interest disclosures among peer reviewers

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2011, Pages

  Lippert, Suzanne ^a,d   Callaham, Michael L ^b,c   Lo, Bernard ^b  

^a ALAMEDA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c AMERICAN COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONSULTATION; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MARKETING; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; PEER REVIEW; PHYSICIAN INCOME; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SELF REPORT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; INTERNET; MIDDLE AGED;

ADULT; AGED; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DISCLOSURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 80355146195     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026900     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Lo B, Field MJ, (2009) Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice; Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice Washington, D.C. National Academies Press.
2. Thomas Reuters (2008) Journal Citation Reports. ISI Web of Knowledge.
3. Wessely S, (1998) Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 352: 301-305.
4. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F, (1999) Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 52: 625-629.
5. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL, (1998) Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 280: 229-231.
6. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB, (2010) Ensuring integrity in industry-sponsored research: primum non nocere, revisited. JAMA 303: 1196-1198.
7. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD, (2010) Implementation of the ICMJE form for reporting potential conflicts of interest. JAMA 304: 1496.
8. Schroter S, Chaudhry S, Smith R, Barratt H, (2004) Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers' perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomized trial. BMJ 328: 742-743.
9. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML, (1998) Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med 32: 310-317.
10. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, et al. (2008) What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 101: 507-514.
11. Schroter S, (2004) Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 328: 673-678.
12. Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, Hart W, Overbeke AJPM, (2006) Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument. Obstetrics and gynecology 108: 979-985.
13. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y, (1994) Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 272: 149-151.
14. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF, (1998) Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine 32: 318-322.
15. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ, (2002) Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA 287: 2781-2783.
16. Callaham ML, Schriger DL, (2002) Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 40: 323-328.
17. Callaham M, (2003) The evaluation and training of peer reviewers. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer Review in Health Sciences: Second Edition London BMJ Books pp. 164-182.
18. Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM, (2008) The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Annals of Internal Medicine 149: 251-258.
19. Lo B, Field MJ, eds. (2009) Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice Washington D.C. National Academies Press.
20. ICMJE (2011) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Ethical Considerations in the Conduct and Reporting of Research: Conflicts of Interest.