rss
J Med Ethics 2009;35:74-78 doi:10.1136/jme.2008.024299
  • Research ethics

A comparison of journal instructions regarding institutional review board approval and conflict-of-interest disclosure between 1995 and 2005

  1. A Rowan-Legg1,
  2. C Weijer2,
  3. J Gao3,
  4. C Fernandez4
  1. 1
    Department of Pediatrics, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Canada
  2. 2
    Departments of Philosophy and Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
  3. 3
    Surveillance and Epidemiology Unit, Cancer Care Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada
  4. 4
    Departments of Pediatrics and Bioethics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
  1. Dr Anne Rowan-Legg, Department of Pediatrics, IWK Health Centre, 5850 University Avenue, PO Box 9700, Halifax, Canada, B3K 6R8; arowanle{at}dal.ca
  • Received 9 January 2008
  • Revised 12 May 2008
  • Accepted 23 May 2008

Abstract

Objectives: To compare 2005 and 1995 ethics guidelines from journal editors to authors regarding requirements for institutional review board (IRB) approval and conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosure.

Design: A descriptive study of the ethics guidelines published in 103 English-language biomedical journals listed in the Abridged Index Medicus in 1995 and 2005. Each journal was reviewed by the principal author and one of four independent reviewers.

Results: During the period, the proportion of journals requiring IRB approval increased from 42% (95% CI 32.2% to 51.2%, p<0.001) to 76% (95% CI 66.4% to 83.1%, p<0.001). In 2005, an additional 9% referred to the Declaration of Helsinki or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Uniform requirements for ethical guidelines; 15% (95% CI 8.5% to 22.5%, p<0.01) provided ambiguous or no requirements. The proportion of journals requiring COI disclosure increased from 75% (95% CI 66.6% to 83.3%, p<0.05) to 94% (95% CI 89.4% to 98.6%, p<0.05); 41% had comprehensive requirements, while some addressed only funding source (6%), were vague (10%) or both (14%). Criteria for authorship rose from 40% (95% CI 30.5% to 49.5%, p<0.05) to 72% (95% CI 63.3% to 80.7%, p<0.05). Journals with higher impact factors were more likely to require IRB approval (p<0.01). Journals in anaesthesia and radiology all required IRB approval; requirements in other disciplines varied.

Conclusions: Instructions to authors regarding ethical standards have improved. Some remain incomplete, especially regarding the scope of disclosure of COI. The ethical guidelines presented to authors need further clarification and standardisation.

Footnotes

  • Funding: This study was supported by a Category A Grant from the IWK Health Centre’s Research Office. The investigators also wish to recognise the external reviewers (Monique MacFarlane, Rob Clements, Kate Collins and Stephanie Carpentier) for their work in the data collection.

  • Competing interests: None.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.