Dermatology Journal Advisory Boards and editorial independence.

Background: Dermatology journals play an essential role in the distribution and promotion of scientific and medical information. Despite this, there are little data on governance structure with respect to its editors, owners, and journal boards that oversee the day-to-day operations for these entities. Objective: This study aimed to explore the current governance structure of dermatology journals and best practice recommendations. Methods: The editors-in-chief of the major dermatology journals participated in an online survey of 29 questions to examine general statistics of each journal, open access model, governance structure, and process for editor selection or dismissal. Results: Of the 52 journal responses, 29 (55.8%) are society-owned journals with 19 (65.5%) primarily governed by a society board, while 18 (34.6%) have an advisory committee or alternative body. Most editor(s)-in-chief (56.9%) serve between 3- and 5-year terms, while 84.6% have the option of at least one renewal. Even though the selection, evaluation, and dismissal processes differed between the journals, generalized best practice recommendations were developed to help improve their overall organization and management. Conclusions: The oversight structure of dermatology journals varies, and some do not follow current best practice recommendations. Transparency regarding leadership, governance, and due process is needed to maintain editorial independence and integrity.

Authorship decision-making in the field of orthopedic surgery and sports medicine.

PURPOSE: To facilitate decision-making in authorship positions, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor (ICMJE) developed a guideline that stipulates criteria authors should meet in order to merit authorship. Authors who did not meet these criteria and still enlisted as authors, are called 'honorary' authors. In this study, the prevalence and characteristics of honorary authorship (HA) is assessed in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine. METHODS: A survey was distributed among corresponding authors of articles published in 2019 in six Orthopedics-dedicated journals. RESULTS: 479 of the 1392 approached authors responded, leading to a response rate of 34.4%. 91.6% of the respondents were aware of the ICMJE guidelines, whereas 67.8% were aware of the issue of HA. Overall, the prevalence of guideline-based HA was 41.9%, while the prevalence of self-perceived HA was 14.7%. Having a senior member automatically enlisted as author on the departments, was associated with a higher rate of guideline-based HA (OR 5.03) and self-perceived HA (OR 3.31). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of HA in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine is high, but comparable to other medical fields. Transparency in authorship decision-making is crucial to maintain liability in scientific articles.

Honorary Authorships in the Ophthalmological Literature.

PURPOSE: To report the prevalence of honorary authorship (HA) among different journals in the ophthalmological literature. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among corresponding authors of six journals with the highest impact factors in the ophthalmological field. The survey consists of questions regarding (1) demographics, (2) awareness of authorship guidelines, and (3) application of authorship guidelines on their current surveyed article. Furthermore, respondents were asked if they felt that according to their understanding of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJEs) guidelines, a coauthor on their current article did not deserve authorship (perceived HA). Furthermore, respondents were asked if coauthors performed solely nonauthor tasks (ICMJE-defined HA). RESULTS: Out of the 1688 surveys sent, 333 were returned, leading to a response rate of 19.7%. Eighty-four and a half percent of all respondents were aware of the ICMJE guidelines. When deciding on order of authorship, most authors decided as a group (43.8%), followed by the senior author deciding (30.1%), and 77 articles were decided by the first author (23.4%). When asked if respondents believed that any of their coauthors did not make sufficient contributions to be included as an author, 8.8% affirmed. One hundred and thirty-one respondents stated that any of their coauthors performed only one or more nonauthor tasks, making the rate of ICMJE-defined HA 39.8%. CONCLUSIONS: HA is present throughout all journals surveyed despite endorsement of the ICMJE guidelines by these same journals. The discrepancy between self-perceived HA and ICMJE-defined HA suggests the necessity for modifications to our authorship system or a contemporary revision to the ICMJE guidelines.

Transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications: a survey of journal editors.

Objective: To examine how medical journal editors perceive changes in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications over a 5 year period (2010 to 2015). Methods: From July to September 2015, a survey link was emailed to journal editors identified from the Thomson Reuters registry. Editors ranked their perception of: a) change in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications; b) 8 "Publication Best Practices" and the impact of each on transparency; and c) the importance and adoption of the previously published "10 Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research". Results: Of 510 editors who opened the survey, the analysis pool comprised a total of 293 editors. The majority of respondents reported their location as the US (46%) or EU (45%) and most commonly reported editorial titles were deputy/assistant editor (36%), editor-in-chief (35%) and section editor (24%). More editors reported improved versus worsened transparency (63.5% vs. 6.1%) and credibility (53.2% vs. 10.4%). Best practices that contributed most to improved transparency were "disclosure of the study sponsor" and "registration and posting of trial results". Respondents ranked the importance of nine recommendations as moderate or extremely important, and adoption of all recommendations was ranked minimal to moderate. Conclusions: The 293 editors who responded perceived an improvement in the transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored publications from 2010 to 2015. Confirmation of the importance of 9/10 recommendations by the respondents was encouraging. Yet, low adoption rates suggest that additional work is required by all stakeholders to improve best practices, transparency and credibility.