Conflict of interest and disclosure policies in psychiatry and medicine: a comparative study of peer-reviewed journals

Abstract

Objective: The authors reviewed and characterized conflict of interest (COI) and disclosure policies published in peer-reviewed psychiatric and nonpsychiatric journals.

Methods: The authors examined peer-reviewed publications in the psychiatric (N=20) and nonpsychiatric (N=20) literature. Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, they designed an instrument to compare COI and disclosure policies appearing in print or journal websites between January and May 2009.

Results: All journals published COI/disclosure policies that were accessible in print and online. There was substantial variability in policies, but little variability appeared to be field-specific. Psychiatric journals were more likely to request "complete" disclosure, and nonpsychiatric journals to request "relevant" disclosure, but medical journals tended to provide more detailed information about what could constitute a potential conflict and asked for broader, potentially relevant funding sources. Nonpsychiatric journals were more likely to give examples in their policies. Psychiatric journals were more likely to publish disclosures.

Conclusion: This preliminary study suggests that there are discrepancies in the disclosure and COI information that journals request from authors. By and large, such discrepancies are not substantially different between psychiatric and nonpsychiatric journals. Challenges in codifying COI policies and creating standardized approaches across periodicals and across disciplines may reflect ongoing debates about what exactly constitutes a COI, what needs to be disclosed, and who is responsible for disclosing. Further study is warranted into how journals convey COI policies and how such policies can be optimized.