© File copyright Colin Purrington. You may

use for making your poster, of course, but

please do not plagiarize, adapt, or put on

your own site. Also, do not upload this file,

even if modified, to third-party file-sharing

sites such as doctoc.com. If you have

insatiable need to post a template onto your

own site, search the internet for a different

template to steal. File downloaded from

http://colinpurrington.com/tips/academic/post

erdesign.

Abstract

Objective: In an effort to close the credibility gap in

reporting industry-sponsored clinical research, an MPIP

roundtable recommends the sharing of prior reviews of

a previously rejected manuscript when the author

submits to a different journal1. The objectives of this

study are to confirm that this practice would increase

the credibility of industry-sponsored clinical studies, and

to assess the current situation in terms of journals

making this possible, since there is currently no

consensus among journal editors.

Research design and methods: We sent an

anonymous online survey to approximately 30,000

recipients who registered to receive eTOC alerts.

Results: The survey received 488 responses, including

122 editors and 249 authors. 75% agreed that there

was a need to improve the transparency of industry-

sponsored research and of these, 85% felt that

including prior peer-reviews in subsequent submissions

would have at least some impact on doing so. However,

47% of those who have had a manuscript peer-

reviewed but not accepted (n= 139) have never been

given the option to include previous peer reviews

alongside a submission, and 37% of editors said they

do not accept them at all.

Conclusions: Of those who feel transparency needs to

be improved for industry-sponsored research, most feel

that including prior peer-reviews alongside subsequent

submissions will do this, although that is currently

impossible with many journals.

Introduction

In May 2012, an MPIP roundtable of journal editors

and pharmaceutical industry representatives issued

ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in

reporting industry-sponsored clinical research1.

One of its recommendations is the sharing of prior

reviews of a previously rejected manuscript when the

author seeks publication in a different journal.

Some journals believe that, by doing this, the paper’s

transparency will be elevated, duplicate submissions

will be avoided, and the quality of submissions will be

increased by the incorporation of reviewer comments

into the manuscript.

Since there is no consensus among journal editors

regarding the acceptance of prior reviews2, the goals

of this study are to confirm that this practice would

increase the credibility of published clinical studies

sponsored by industry and also to assess the

availability of this option at a group of randomly

selected journals.

References

1”Ten Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting

Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Joint Journal and

Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective”, Mayo Clinic Proceedings,

Vol. 87, No. 5, pp.424-429 (May, 2012).

2Ibid., p.427.

Results

The survey received 488 responses. Of these, 122 individuals

identified themselves as editors and 249 identified themselves as

authors. Key questions and findings included:

1. Those who feel that there is a need to improve the

transparency of industry sponsored research: What impact do

you feel that including previous peer-reviewers’ comments will

have on improving the transparency of industry-sponsored

research?

75% of all respondents said that there was a need to improve the

transparency of industry-sponsored research and of these (n=

366), 85% felt that including previous peer-reviewers’ comments

would have at least some impact on achieving this.

Of those who felt that it would have very little or no impact (n=

55), many said that including previous reviews would not prevent

industry-sponsored research from being biased.

In addition, 52% of the sample indicated that if previous peer-

reviewers’ comments had been submitted alongside a piece of

industry sponsored research they were reading, they would trust

it more, 45% felt it was likely to be of higher quality, and 40% said

it would be less likely to present findings in a biased way.

2. Authors who have had a manuscript rejected after peer-

review, and have gone on to submit it elsewhere (n = 139):

Which statement best describes your experience of submitting

previous peer-reviewers’ comments along with a submission to

a journal?

• When submitting to a journal, 47% of this group reported that it

was not possible to include previous peer-reviewers’ comments

alongside their manuscript for any journal to which they have

submitted. Another 20% said they have submitted to at least one

journal where it was optional.

• Of those who included them when it was optional to do so (n=

16), a majority said that a reason for this was to prove that they

had improved their research from the previous submission, and

half felt that it would make the peer-review process faster.

(In fact, only 24% of editors who do accept previous peer-

reviewers’ comments said that they actually pass them on to the

peer-reviewers.)

Results (continued) 3. Authors: To what extent do you agree or disagree with

the following statement: “I am or would be happy to include

previous peer-reviewers’ comments”.

Although 85% of those who felt that there is a need to improve

the transparency of industry sponsored research felt that

including previous peer-reviewers’ comments would have at

least some impact, authors themselves are less likely to agree

about whether or not they would be happy to include comments

along with a submission. 35% would be happy to submit them

while 40% would not be happy to submit them along with their

manuscript.

This is also despite 42% of the total sample indicating that they

would respect a journal which made it compulsory to include

previous peer-reviewers comments alongside submissions and

51% saying that they expect inclusion of previous peer

reviewers’ comments would increase the quality of a paper.

4. Editors: Do you accept previous peer-reviewers’

comments alongside a submission?

37% of editors in our study do not accept previous peer-

reviewers’ comments when considering manuscripts to publish

in their journal. 33% of those editors felt that “there is a

perception that authors would not want to do this”. 23% of

editors give authors a choice in the matter.

• However, editors seem positive about the idea, with 21%

indicating that if it was their choice, they would make it

compulsory for their journal and 62% saying they would make it

optional.

Neil Adams1, Fiona Watt2, Kathleen P. Lyons1, Laura Harper2, Martin Delahunty2, Julianne Scarpino1

1Nature Publishing Group, New York, USA, 2Nature Publishing Group, London, UK

Methods

We sent an anonymous online survey via email to

approximately 30,000 individuals who registered to

receive electronic table of contents alerts from

Nature.com.

The survey was mailed on November 27, 2012 and

the deadline for all responses was December 14,

2012.

The survey instrument comprised of up to 42

questions depending on the participants’ responses.

Completed surveys were evaluated using descriptive,

univariate analyses.

Conclusions

According to the MPIP roundtable, the sharing of prior reviews

from other journals offers an opportunity to enhance the

transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical

research.

In our study – among those editors and authors who believe

that transparency of industry-sponsored research needs to be

improved – most feel that including previous peer-reviewers’

comments alongside subsequent submissions will help achieve

this.

Unfortunately, however, many journal editors do not accept

previous peer-reviewers’ comments at the time of submission,

and many authors indicated that they would not include them,

anyway.

Great impact 27%

No impact at all 1%

Very little impact 14%

Some impact 58%

Strongly agree 8%

Agree 27%

Neither agree nor disagree

24% I don't know 1%

Disagree 26%

Strongly disagree

14%

No -- not accepted

37%

Yes -- it is compulsory

18%

We give authors a

choice 23%

I don't know 22%

12%

20%

22%

47%

0% 20% 40% 60%

I don’t know

I have made one or moresubmissions to journals where

it is optional to do this

I have made one or moresubmissions to journals where

it is compulsory to do this

None of the journals I havesubmitted to have given me the

option to do this