Patient involvement in preparing health research peer-reviewed publications or results summaries: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations.

BACKGROUND: There are increasing calls for patient involvement in sharing health research results, but no evidence-based recommendations to guide such involvement. Our objectives were to: (1) conduct a systematic review of the evidence on patient involvement in results sharing, (2) propose evidence-based recommendations to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of such involvement and (3) conduct this project with patient authors. METHODS: To avoid research waste, we verified that no systematic reviews were registered or published on this topic. We co-created, with patients, a PRISMA-P-compliant protocol. We included peer-reviewed publications reporting the effects of patient involvement in preparing peer-reviewed publications or results summaries from health research studies. We searched (9/10/2017) MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and secondary information sources (until 11/06/2018). We assessed the risk of bias in eligible publications and extracted data using standardized processes. To evaluate patient involvement in this project, we co-created a Patient Authorship Experience Tool. RESULTS: All nine eligible publications reported on patient involvement in preparing publications; none on preparing results summaries. Evidence quality was moderate. A qualitative synthesis of evidence indicated the benefits of patient involvement may outweigh the risks. We have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks when involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications. The recommendations focus on practical actions patient and non-patient authors can take before (10 recommendations), during (7 recommendations) and after (4 recommendations) manuscript development. Using the Patient Authorship Experience Tool, both patient and non-patient authors rated their experience highly. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review, we have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications.

High nonpublication rate from publication professionals hinders evidence-based publication practices.

Background. The need for timely, ethical, and high-quality reporting of clinical trial results has seen a rise in demand for publication professionals. These publication experts, who are not ghostwriters, work with leading medical researchers and funders around the world to plan and prepare thousands of publications each year. Despite the involvement of publication professionals in an increasing number of peer-reviewed publications, especially those that affect patient care, there is limited evidence-based guidance in the peer-reviewed literature on their publication practices. Similar to the push for editors and the peer-review community to conduct and publish research on publication ethics and the peer-review process, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) has encouraged members to conduct and publish research on publication planning and practices. Our primary objective was to investigate the publication rate of research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings. Methods. ISMPP Annual Meeting abstract lists (April 2009-April 2014) were searched in November 2014 and data were extracted into a pilot-tested spreadsheet. MEDLINE was searched in December 2014 to determine the publication rate (calculated as the % of presented abstracts published as full papers in peer-reviewed journals). Data were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test (significance: P < .05) by an independent academic statistician. Results. From 2009 to 2014, there were 220 abstracts submitted, 185 accepted, and 164 presented. There were four corresponding publications (publication rate 2.4%). Over time, ISMPP's abstract acceptance rate (overall: 84.1%) did not change, but the number of abstracts presented increased significantly (P = .02). Most abstracts were presented as posters (81.1%) and most research was observational (72.6%). Most researchers came from the US (78.0%), followed by Europe (17.7%), and the Asia-Pacific region (11.2%). Discussion. Research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings has rarely been published in peer-reviewed journals. The high rate of nonpublication by publication professionals has now been quantified and is of concern. Publication professionals should do more to contribute to evidence-based publication practices, including, and especially, their own. Unless the barriers to publication are identified and addressed, the practices of publication professionals, which affect thousands of peer-reviewed publications each year, will remain hidden and unproven.

Sponsor-Imposed Publication Restrictions Disclosed on ClinicalTrials.gov.

We investigated whether sponsor-imposed publication restrictions for ClinicalTrials.gov trials were reasonable, based on consistency with Good Publication Practice 2 (GPP2). ClinicalTrials.gov trial record data were electronically imported (October 7, 2012) and screened for eligibility (phase 2-4, interventional, recruitment closed, results available, first received for registration after November 10, 2009, any sponsor type, investigators not sponsor employees). Two authors categorized restrictions information as consistent or not consistent with GPP2, resolving discrepancies by consensus. Of the eligible trials (388/484, n = 81,768 participants), 80.7% (313/388) had restrictions disclosed, and 92.5% (311/388) were industry-sponsored. Significantly more trials had restrictions that were consistent with GPP2 than not (74.1% [232/313], n = 55,280 participants vs. 25.9% [81/313], n = 19,677 participants; P < .001). Reasons for inconsistency were insufficient, unclear, or ambiguous information (48.1%, 39/81), sponsor-required approval for publication (35.8%, 29/81), sponsor-required text changes (8.6%, 7/81), and outright bans (7.4%, 6/81). Follow-up of trials with insufficient information and a contact email (response rate, 46.9% [15/32]) revealed 2 additional bans. A total of 776 participants had consented to trials that had publication bans. Many, but not all, sponsor-imposed publication restrictions disclosed on ClinicalTrials.gov may be considered reasonable. Sponsors should ensure restrictions are appropriately disclosed. Volunteers should be alerted to any restrictions before consenting to participate in a clinical trial.

Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3.

This updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guideline, known as GPP3, builds on earlier versions and provides recommendations for individuals and organizations that contribute to the publication of research results sponsored or supported by pharmaceutical, medical device, diagnostics, and biotechnology companies. The recommendations are designed to help individuals and organizations maintain ethical and transparent publication practices and comply with legal and regulatory requirements. These recommendations cover publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations (oral or poster) at scientific congresses. The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals invited more than 3000 professionals worldwide to apply for a position on the steering committee, or as a reviewer, for this guideline. The GPP2 authors reviewed all applications (n = 241) and assembled an 18-member steering committee that represented 7 countries and a diversity of publication professions and institutions. From the 174 selected reviewers, 94 sent comments on the second draft, which steering committee members incorporated after discussion and consensus. The resulting guideline includes new sections (Principles of Good Publication Practice for Company-Sponsored Medical Research, Data Sharing, Studies That Should Be Published, and Plagiarism), expands guidance on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and common authorship issues, improves clarity on appropriate author payment and reimbursement, and expands information on the role of medical writers. By following good publication practices (including GPP3), individuals and organizations will show integrity; accountability; and responsibility for accurate, complete, and transparent reporting in their publications and presentations.

Time to finger point or fix? An invitation to join ongoing efforts to promote ethical authorship and other good publication practices.

In this commentary, we present evidence that unethical authorship (eg, guest and ghost authoring) and other publication practices are not restricted to the pharmaceutical industry; they also occur in academia. Such practices are not an industry problem--they are a research problem. To enhance trust in industry-sponsored research, companies have made rapid and far-reaching changes to their publication guidelines, policies, and procedures. Professional medical writers have adopted, and continue to implement, these changes. Although evidence indicates that industry practices are improving, there is certainly more to do, both in industry and academia. We invite readers to join ongoing efforts to promote ethical publication practices.

Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a systematic, retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether plagiarism is more prevalent in publications retracted from the medical literature when first authors are affiliated with lower-income countries versus higher-income countries. Secondary objectives included investigating other factors associated with plagiarism (e.g., national language of the first author's country affiliation, publication type, journal ranking). DESIGN: Systematic, controlled, retrospective, bibliometric study. DATA SOURCE: Retracted publications dataset in MEDLINE (search filters: English, human, January 1966-February 2008). DATA SELECTION: Retracted misconduct publications were classified according to the first author's country affiliation, country income level, and country national language, publication type, and ranking of the publishing journal. Standardised definitions and data collection tools were used; data were analysed (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence limits [CL], chi-squared tests) by an independent academic statistician. RESULTS: Of the 213 retracted misconduct publications, 41.8% (89/213) were retracted for plagiarism, 52.1% (111/213) for falsification/fabrication, 2.3% (5/213) for author disputes, 2.3% (5/213) for ethical issues, and 1.4% (3/213) for unknown reasons. The OR (95% CL) of plagiarism retractions (other misconduct retractions as reference) were higher (P < 0.001) for first authors affiliated with lower-income versus higher-income countries (15.4 [4.5, 52.9]) and with non-English versus English national language countries (3.2 [1.8, 5.7]), for non-original research versus original research publications (8.4 [3.3, 21.3]), for case reports and series versus other original research types (4.2 [1.4, 13.0]), and for publications in low-ranked versus high-ranked journals (4.9 [2.4, 9.9]). Up until 2012, there were significantly (P < 0.007) fewer 'serial offenders' (first authors with >1 retraction) with publications retracted for plagiarism (11.5%, 9/78) than other types of misconduct (28.9%, 24/83). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate that publications retracted for plagiarism are significantly associated with first authors affiliated with lower-income countries. These findings have implications for developing appropriate evidence-based strategies and allocation of resources to help mitigate plagiarism misconduct.

Lack of involvement of medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry in publications retracted for misconduct: a systematic, controlled, retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to quantify how many publications retracted because of misconduct involved declared medical writers (i.e., not ghostwriters) or declared pharmaceutical industry support. The secondary objective was to investigate factors associated with misconduct retractions. DESIGN: A systematic, controlled, retrospective, bibliometric study. DATA SOURCE: Retracted publications dataset in the MEDLINE database. DATA SELECTION: PubMed was searched (Limits: English, human, January 1966 - February 2008) to identify publications retracted because of misconduct. Publications retracted because of mistake served as the control group. Standardized definitions and data collection tools were used, and data were analyzed by an independent academic statistician. RESULTS: Of the 463 retracted publications retrieved, 213 (46%) were retracted because of misconduct. Publications retracted because of misconduct rarely involved declared medical writers (3/213; 1.4%) or declared pharmaceutical industry support (8/213; 3.8%); no misconduct retractions involved both declared medical writers and the industry. Retraction because of misconduct, rather than mistake, was significantly associated with: absence of declared medical writers (odds ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.57); absence of declared industry involvement (0.25; 0.11-0.58); single authorship (2.04; 1.01-4.12); first author having at least one other retraction (2.05; 1.35-3.11); and first author affiliated with a low/middle income country (2.34; 1.18-4.63). The main limitations of this study were restricting the search to English-language and human research articles. CONCLUSIONS: Publications retracted because of misconduct rarely involved declared medical writers or declared pharmaceutical industry support. Increased attention should focus on factors that are associated with misconduct retractions.

What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature?

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: Ghostwriting occurs when someone makes substantial contributions to a manuscript without attribution or disclosure. It is considered bad publication practice in the medical sciences, and some argue it is scientific misconduct. At its extreme, medical ghostwriting involves pharmaceutical companies hiring professional writers to produce papers promoting their products but hiding those contributions and instead naming academic physicians or scientists as the authors. To improve transparency, many editors' associations and journals allow professional medical writers to contribute to the writing of papers without being listed as authors provided their role is acknowledged. This debate examines how best to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature from the perspectives of a researcher, an editor, and the professional medical writer.