Newswise — The peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) announced today that it has strengthened its policy on disclosure of competing financial interests by researchers submitting papers for publication. The journal, which was previously acknowledged by the Center for Science in the Public Interest as having one of the "best policies" in the field, added specific punitive measures that can now be taken should willful non-disclosure occur.
With the adoption of the new procedures, first announced to readers in an editorial in this month's journal, EHP now has the option of imposing a three-year ban on publication on an offending author. In addition, if the omission of a conflict is serious enough to have caused the journal to reject the paper had it been communicated initially, the journal will formally retract the paper, noting the action in the journal and removing the paper from its website.
"Authors should realize that disclosing financial support does not automatically diminish the credibility of the research," said Dr. Thomas J. Goehl, editor-in-chief of EHP. "However, failure to disclose a competing financial interest that is subsequently discovered immediately opens the authors to questions about objectivity."
Goehl also noted that in cases where a breach did not warrant retraction, but an ethical omission had occurred, an Expression of Concern will be written, published in the journal, and added to the online version of the article.
The need for full disclosure has become even more compelling as commercial organizations provide an increasing percentage of research support. EHP has long recognized the growing importance of full disclosure and had most recently clarified its policies in 2003. While the editorial board believes the disclosure requirements have always been clear, a recent survey by CSPI of several journals raised concerns about enforcement.
CSPI surveyed four top medical and scientific journals, chosen for having among the best policies regarding competing financial interests. Among these were Environmental Health Perspectives, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology.
CSPI found three EHP articles (8.6%) where they believed an author should have disclosed conflicts in accordance with the policy. The authors named by the CSPI have since provided explanations for why they did not provide disclosure to EHP. These explanations were published in the October 2004 issue of EHP.
"Considering the issues raised by the CSPI report, we feel that it is appropriate for EHP to continue to update our disclosure policy," Goehl wrote in the editorial announcing the changes. "Full disclosure is in the best interest of the individual scientists, the journals, and society, which must have complete faith that our research is not only of the highest quality but also is open, honest, and unbiased."
About Environmental Health Perspectives
EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. EHP became an Open Access journal in January 2004. More information is available online at http://www.ehponline.org/.
MEDIA CONTACT
Register for reporter access to contact detailsCITATIONS
Environmental Health Perspectives
RSS