1. Attempts to redefine conflicts of interest
Marc A. Rodwin, M.A., J.D., Ph.D.a,b
aSuffolk University Law School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; b2017-18 Chair in Integrated Cancer Research and Senior Research Fellow, IMÉRA, Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France
ABSTRACT
The traditional legal concept of conflict of interest is a practical tool to regulate conduct. In recent years several medical authors have defined conflicts of interest in ways that stray from its original legal
meaning. The new definitions cause conceptual confusion and will result in policies that cannot be implemented effectively. We should not follow recent attempts to redefine conflicts of interest because doing
so deviates from the legal concept and will lead to deregulation of financial conflicts and overregulation of so-called intellectual conflicts.
KEYWORDS
Commercialization of research; conflicts of interest; law
2. Researchers’ interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study
David Shaw, Ph.D.a,b and Priya Satalkar, Ph.D.a
aInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; bCare and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
Despite increasing interest in integrity issues, relatively few studies have examined researchers’ own interpretations of integrity. As part of the Perspectives on Research Integrity in Science and Medicine
(PRISM) project, we sought to explore how researchers themselves define research integrity. We conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with clinical and laboratory-based researchers from across Switzerland.
Data were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis and illustrative quotes were selected. Researchers defined integrity in terms of honesty, transparency, and objectivity, and generally stressed the
importance of sticking to the research question and avoiding bias in data interpretation. Some saw research integrity as being synonymous with scientific integrity, but others regarded research integrity as being
a subset of the wider domain of scientific integrity. A few participants equated research integrity with mere absence of misconduct, but the majority of participants regarded integrity as being more than this.
Researchers regarded truth as the key aspect of integrity, though they expressed this in different ways and with various emphases on honesty, transparency, and objectivity. Integrity goes beyond avoiding
misconduct, and scientific integrity has a wider domain than research integrity.
KEYWORDS
Research integrity; scientific integrity; ethics; clinical research; research misconduct; scientific misconduct
3. Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A gender-based approach from a public health journal
M a r í a F e l í c i t a s D o m í n g u e z - B e r j ó n , M . D . , P h . D . a, Pere Godoy, M.D., Ph.D. b,c,d, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Ph.D.d,e, Miguel Ángel Negrín, Ph.D.f, Carmen Vives-Cases, Ph.D.d,g, Carlos Álvarez-
Dardet, M.D., Ph.D.d,g, Clara Bermúdez-Tamayo, Ph.D.d,h, María José López, Ph.D.d,i,j,k, Glòria Pérez, M.D., Ph.D.d,i,j,k, and Carme Borrell, M.D., Ph.D.d,i,j,k
aDirectorate-General for Public Health, Madrid Regional Health Authority, Madrid, Spain; bDepartament de Salut, Generalitat of Catalonia, Lleida, Spain; cUniversitat de Lleida, Lleida, Spain; dCIBER de
Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain; eDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; fDepartment of
Quantitative Methods, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain; gPublic Health Research Group, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain; hAndalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain;
iAgència de Salut Pública de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; jUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; kInstitut d’Investigació Biomèdica (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain
ABSTRACT
Peer review in the scientific publication is widely used as a method to identify valuable knowledge. Editors have the task of selecting appropriate reviewers. We assessed the reasons given by potential reviewers
for declining a request to review, and the factors associated with acceptance, taking into account the difference in the sex of the reviewer. This is a descriptive study of the review requests from a public health
journal (Gaceta Sanitaria) with an enforced gender policy. The dependent variables were requests, response to requests, reasons potential reviewers gave for declining requests and time to review. We carried out
a descriptive analysis of these indicators and applied logistic regression to analyze factors (professional and research/review experience) associated with having done at least one review in 2014–2015. Results
were stratified by sex. Journal editors sent 1,775 requests to 773 potential reviewers; 52.3% of whom reviewed at least one manuscript. Of the 396 declined requests (22.3%), the most common reasons were
lack of time and of experience (88.1%). No differences were observed by sex. In the multivariate analysis, having reviewed for the journal in previous years showed the strongest association with acceptance.
Specific analyses of data on requests reviewers may be useful for improving the acceptance rates to review. This study did not show gender differences in several indicators of the reviewing process.
KEYWORDS
Editorial policy; gender; peer review; scientific publications
4. Perceptions of undergraduate pharmacy students on plagiarism in three major public universities in Egypt
Moataz Ehab Mohamed, B.Sc. a, Nagla Mohy, G.S. b, and Sarah Salah, G.S. b
aDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt; bFaculty of Pharmacy, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
ABSTRACT
The survey aimed to capture the perceptions of undergraduate pharmacy students towards plagiarism in three major public universities in Cairo, Egypt: Helwan, Ain-Shams, and Cairo Universities. This was a
paper-based self-administrated survey study. The questionnaire was validated by both content and face validation. The final survey form captured the knowledge of the students on plagiarism in terms of
definitions, attitudes, and practices. Four hundred and fourteen students, 320 females and 94 males, participated in the study. There was a significant difference between the students who knew the definition of
plagiarism among the three universities with p-value = .01. More than half of the participants (67%) claimed that they had no previous education or training on plagiarism. However, after being informed about
plagiarism, most of them agreed that plagiarism should be regarded as stealing and a punishment. Additionally, poor study skills and the ease of copying and pasting from the Internet were identified by the
majority of the students to be the leading causes of plagiarism. Pharmacy students need to be more educated on plagiarism and its consequences on research and educational ethics. Finally, more strict policies
should be incorporated to monitor and control plagiarism in undergraduate sections.
KEYWORDS
Academic dishonesty; cheating; pharmacy students; plagiarism; research ethics; research misconduct
