RightOnCanada.ca

Kathleen Ruff, RightOnCanada.ca

What mechanisms exist to deal with issues of improper conduct and non-disclosure of conflicting interests by scientific journals? Sad to say, there is little in place to address serious problems of this kind, apart from sending a complaint to the editor, which is easily ignored.

The only mechanism that seems to be available is a self-policing initiative by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE was created with the purpose of promoting integrity in research publications. In order to encourage editors and publishers of scholarly journals to follow ethical standards, COPE has established a Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. The nine thousand journals that are now members of COPE are expected to comply with this Code. Complaints may be submitted to COPE regarding non-compliance with the Code by any of its member journals.

While COPE’s Code of Conduct is far from adequate, it appears to be the only mechanism available to challenge improprieties and non-disclosure of conflicting interests in articles published by scientific journals.

Below are details about the COPE Code of Conduct and about a complaint, which has been submitted to COPE, regarding improprieties and non-disclosure of conflicting interests in an article on asbestos by Carlo La Vecchia and Paolo Boffetta, published by the European Journal of Cancer Prevention, a member journal of COPE.

The decision that COPE takes on the complaint will demonstrate whether COPE intends its member journals to take its Code of Conduct seriously. As Dr. Arthur Frank states, “The credibility of COPE’s complaint mechanism is now on the line.”

Purpose of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Over nine thousand editors and publishers of peer-reviewed journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The aim of COPE is to define best practice in the ethics of scholarly publishing and to assist editors, editorial board members, owners of journals and publishers to achieve this. One of the ways in which it fulfills this mission is by the publication of its Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Editors who are COPE members are expected to follow this Code of Conduct.

Complaints can be submitted to COPE regarding the conduct of any of its member journals. The complaint must relate to specific items in the COPE Code of Conduct and must first have been raised to the attention of the journal. If the complaint has not been resolved, COPE will evaluate the concerns. COPE’s role is to point out best practices and to advise on how issues should be handled.

If a COPE member is not willing to comply with the Code of Conduct, COPE aims to discuss that with the member, and will ask them to consider their membership of the organization.

Complaint submitted to COPE

In January 2014, over 140 scientists, health defenders and civil society organisations sent a letter to the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECPO) regarding serious scientific and ethical improprieties in an article on asbestos published by the organisation’s official scientific journal, the European Journal of Cancer Prevention.

Prof. Jaak Ph Janssens, President of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation and Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Cancer Prevention responded in a letter of February 10, 2014, in which he stated that he found nothing improper.

On March 12, 2014, a complaint was submitted to COPE, signed by over forty scientists and a dozen organisations.

The complaint referred to specific provisions in the COPE Code of Conduct and documented the ways in which the European Journal of Cancer Prevention had failed to comply with these provisions.

On May 26, 2014, Prof. Janssens sent a response to COPE, denying that there had been any improprieties.

On June 5, 2014,  a group of scientists sent a letter to COPE, noting that Prof. Janssens had not addressed most of the concerns that had been raised and providing further evidence of improprieties.

Decision awaited

A decision is now awaited from COPE.