We are dealing with a paper which contains an obvious but disclosed conflict of interest. The paper has two authors who are company employees (one is the CEO). The study does not directly involve their product (a medical device) but does directly involve the assessment of the broader medical service which it supports. The results of their study are favourable toward the company. All company affiliations are disclosed.
A confounding issue is that the other coauthors are leading researchers in the field and one is the president of the society which owns the journal. The editor of the journal has complete editorial independence from the society and has received no pressure to publish from the society leadership.
Apart from the COI, the paper is likely sound scientifically and is likely to be published otherwise. If we do publish, the editor would ask the authors to not only disclose in the proper COI declaration page but also in the discussion section of the paper as a ‘limitation’.
Questions for COPE Council
- Is this the correct course of action? Is the disclosure of COI sufficient?
- What is the standard for publication by corporate employees? If we ask that some authors be removed, does that create additional conflicts (eg failure to comply with authorship policies and may not overcome the COI if the remaining authors do not alter the paper)?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
Council believe that it is the editor's job is to speak on behalf of the scholarly record. So, setting aside the identities of the authors, is the scholarship sound and does the expression properly represent the ideas in the paper? The purpose of a disclosure is to allow readers to make up their own minds about any potential bias. If the editor and the reviewers agree the scholarship is sound, and the presentation is unbiased, then Council would suggest publishing the paper. Adding a section in the discussion on the topic would be a distraction, particularly if titled ‘Limitation’, and Council believe it is unwarranted. Also, the editor cannot ask that authors be removed—authorship issues should be decided among the authors.
However, if the editor believes something needs be written, perhaps they could write an editorial on the treatment of such conflicts of interest?