期刊发表一个动物研究药物的使用X治疗临床状况答:作者没有宣布任何利益冲突。几个月出版后,记者联系了编辑说通讯作者有几个专利药物X,被列为一个发明家的药物,他导演的公共慈善机构最近宣布,他们寻求批准的临床试验药物X条件b。他还说通讯作者共有一个商业公司和慈善机构开展业务的人。作者被要求澄清任何利益冲突,并针对《华尔街日报》的政策,这是网上发布说明作者的一部分。相应的作者回答说,商业公司的子公司慈善和没有所有权。他没有明确表示是否有任何利益冲突声明。相反,他想知道这个问题已经暴露出来。在电话交谈中,他证实,该慈善机构已经申请专利的使用药物治疗临床条件,但尚未获得批准。他还说,没有授权给公司开发/制造毒品的条件。然而,他还说,如果药物许可,该慈善机构可以选择通过一些版税的发明家。建议以下竞争利益声明应该发表:“作者1、2和3的员工不是盈利机构,已申请的专利的使用药物在临床的治疗条件a . X研究所是一个公共慈善机构目前持有专利药物的使用X在其他临床条件下,与作者1列为一个发明家。”——作者应该包括竞争利益宣言》手稿吗? - If so, should it be any different to what was suggested? - In general, what should be done about studies on drugs that are potentially lucrative? Should the authors declare if they “might” make money? - In this case, what does “not-for-profit” really mean? - And what does all this mean for researchers at universities that make money through spin-off companies?
建议:
——在透明作者的利益应该宣布的利益冲突。——专利的持有者应该宣布他们持有这样一个专利,即使利润去其他地方,因为他们获得无形的受益于相关的专利。——没什么错有利益冲突,但它必须声明。这让读者决定为自己的利益冲突的相关论文的结论。——这是期刊的良好习惯,以确保他们有明确的政策利益冲突。——一些期刊论文发送回原来的评论家和让他们评论的利益冲突是否会改变他们的意见在纸上。——收缩的一篇论文未申报利益冲突只会被认为是非常严重的情况下,这似乎破坏了数据的有效性。——修正的出版对未申报利益冲突通常是最适当的行动。——对非营利机构的引用是一个红色的鲱鱼仍有潜力的作者获得财务和非财务利益的产品。——编辑器应该发布更正声明未申报利益冲突的性质。 - The journal should also consider whether they need to state their conflict of interest policy more clearly.
跟进:
起草一个新的调整,排除作者的从属关系的非营利组织。编辑联系相应的作者,让他知道变化,为什么它被完成,并要求他改批准修正。新修正如下:“在我们最近的文章中,[1]我们未能声明以下利益冲突:A、B和C X研究所的员工,已申请的专利的使用药物治疗出血热。学院目前拥有专利的使用在其他临床条件下N, D列为一个发明家。”相应的作者说,他不会同意声明没有提及他的机构是一个公共慈善机构。他还表示,他认为指南声明利益冲突发布指令的作者还不够明确。bob官方app编辑回应说,该机构的“非营利”地位是不相关的,潜在的利益冲突可能仍然存在,它应该宣布。作者拒绝同意声明没有提及“非营利”,想接触应付更详细地讨论这个问题。作者还威胁要采取法律行动,如果编辑发布更正未经他的同意。他提出一个新的草案文本的修正。 In our recent article [1], we did not declare the patent rights related to N technology. Since they may potentially be viewed as non-financial competing interests, despite the fact our employer is a non-profit public charity, we are now providing the following supplemental information: A, B and C are employees of X Institute, which has applied for a patent for the use of N in the treatment of haemorrhagic fever. X Institute currently holds patents for the use of N in other clinical conditions, with D listed as an inventor.” To clarify the journal’s position, the editors decided to post the following comment on the correction, which the author also agreed to: “[The publisher] thanks the authors for clarifying their competing interests and wishes to make clear its view that even employees of non profit public charities may have competing interests (financial or otherwise) and that it is always best to err on the side of declaring these. However, at the time of publication of the original article, our competing interests policy was not sufficiently explicit on this point. We will, therefore, be updating it in due course.”
三位作者的评论,X为第一作者,博士发表在《A。五个月后,被告知教授W杂志的编辑,一个图的审核由X博士最初出现在一份研究报告,由教授在1990 W杂志B。教授还说,X博士发表了相同或非常相似的人物期刊C, D(研究论文)和E(审查)。《论文参考5在《评论》杂志上。X博士否认他“偷”图。然而,后一个“专家评审”杂志C得出的数据是相同的,该杂志的编辑们收回了X博士的论文。X博士已经开始法律诉讼的一个杂志的编辑c W教授是推动一个完整的收回日报》评论的a . X博士愿意自愿撤回,但他的公司不支持作者,因为问题的图没有区别的没有争议的结论。杂志上发表的一份声明中指出的收缩C》杂志和《E发表了类似的声明。杂志D招募了一位专家来检查教授W的原始病理材料。与这个调查》期刊上。专家认为,数字出版的期刊和D是一样的教授W的原始幻灯片。 Dr X has been told by journals A and D that they will request his institution to investigate the allegations made against him. This case refers to the same disputed figure brought to COPE by another member journal in case 02/02.
建议:
_如果图最初教授W和出版于1990年,最初的期刊会有版权的数字。_如果审查足够没有图,然后可以撤回杂志图或承认原版权所有者。_原始幻灯片必须做出正确的评估研究教授的说法。_图属于一个作家怎么能进入拥有另一个?《华尔街日报》已被告知,W博士和X教授是合作者过去,图像已经进入临床图像和数据库据称被提取。_有任何版权文件与存款有关的图像数据库?_如果X公司博士作者不希望收回,然后杂志可以发布补遗/勘误表解释围绕图所有权的问题,承认原版权所有者。_这不是《华尔街日报》的责任来解决争端W教授和博士X _编辑器可以决定行动听完X博士的机构调查的结果。_编辑应该试着信任的调查上获得更多的信息。_编辑应采取他的担忧,医生和医疗主任的监督管理机构,通知医生和他的意图的信任。 As a registered physician, the editor has a duty to report any serious concerns to the regulatory body. _ The editor is a member of the regulatory body. which imposes a higher duty to report his concerns and act on them. _ The editor’s case for reporting was strengthened by the fact that he had taken the advice of COPE on the matter.
研究信是从一组调查人员提交,A, B, C,以及d在他们的求职信他们说:参与计划的一项研究中,收集患者样本,并在写作手稿;测量了il - 10 B多态性分析结果;C是参与监督测量多态性和写作手稿;D参与规划研究和写作手稿。这封信是同行评审和发布。相应的作者是D十天之后收到一封来自B和C从D在一个不同的工作机构,邀请我们发布了一个错误。他们的实质性修改指出,一起评论说“此外,我们想指出B和C的贡献同样这份报告的内容”。C也附上一份给D说他很不高兴别人从未见过的证明,这样的错误,如封闭,可以纠正。C被认为是不道德的不是证明给合作者。进一步强劲评论的研究合作。 D replied “surprised and saddened.”He argued that in the collaboration “the idea for this research was therefore entirely generated by us”. Furthermore, he said, B and C “saw and agreed to all the changes in the short manuscript and the final version that was submitted to the journal with all our signatures.” He went on: “I had to review the proofs within 24 hours and fax them back. There was no time to send this to the other authors for their approval (and we do not do this routinely in our department as it is usually the responsibility of the corresponding author). I am very concerned that you have sent off a letter to the journal without the courtesy of letting us see it beforehand. This is most unusual behaviour and can only have a damaging effect. The erratum is curious as these changes should have been made in the original manuscript.” What do we do about the alleged and apparently disputed erratum? Should journals have a clear policy about authors (all, some, the senior, or only the corresponding) seeing galley proofs? If so,what should the policy be?