I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it in the rest of the way.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > --- On Tue, 2/11/10, John Vandenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM, > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >.. > > > There have been plenty of studies on drugs, which were > > not paid for, by > > > anyone with a vested monetary interest in changing the > > drug's market outlook. > > > Being flippant as John was, hardly forwards the > > conversation. > > > > The point I was making is that there is a lot of different > > types of > > research, funded by different groups with different > > agendas. > > > > The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 > > interventional > > studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scientific > > reviews. > > Also, they do not dissect the data based on the > > reputability of the > > publishing venue. > > > > We should only use peer-reviewed research published in > > reputable > > journals, which eliminates vast quantities of 'research'. > > > > We have had a number of red herrings and strawmen in this discussion so > far: > > 1. That this is about editors' POV pushing. > > -- It isn't in my case. I don't edit this topic area. What I am concerned > about is that we do not appear to follow the publication ethics of > the best journalistic and scholarly sources in this field. > > 2. That this is an issue associated with poorly sourced studies, and would > be resolved by making sure we use reputable sources. > > -- This is about peer-reviewed research in the best journals, like The > Lancet, JAMA, and so forth. The editors of these journals decided that, > as a fundamental point of publishing ethics, they would disclose > conflict-of-interest information in all biomedical research articles. > The editors of these journals felt this was vital to safeguard the > credibility "of the journal, the authors, and of science itself". > > 3. That this is only about individual studies, which shouldn't be used as > sources anyway, and that the problem is resolved automatically by using > systematic reviews. > > -- The editors of JAMA, The Lancet, etc. have specifically pointed out - > http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html - that "Disclosure of such > relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review > articles". In other words, reviews are as subject to conflicts of > interest as clinical trials. In addition, our guidelines allow citation > of individual studies, and many are in fact cited, without available > conflict-of-interest information included. > > 4. That this standard is about scholarly publishing, and doesn't apply to > us as encyclopedists/journalists. > > -- The "gold standard" for journalism is the same as for scholarly > publishing: If you cite researchers or studies, disclose their > conflicts of interests. > > 5. That this would inflate the article by adding extraneous detail. > > -- We are typically talking about the addition of four words: "sponsored by > the manufacturer", "funded by the British Heart Foundation", etc. > > 6. That reliable sources mentioning such research do not mention funding, > and that therefore we shouldn't either. > > -- Many do. Some that do not have been severely criticised for it. > > 7. That this would lead editors to add further extraneous POV detail. > > -- This is addressed by existing policies and guidelines, which require > that cited sources should directly address the article topic. In > addition, disclosing conflicts of interest as a matter of course is > likely to help placate editors concerned about research bias, thereby > reducing the number of disputes initiated by such editors. > > 8. That this would lead to our having to report funding sources for > research in other areas, such as computing. > > -- We take our cues from what reliable sources do. There would be no basis > for requiring editors to report funding of cited computing studies, > unless there were a well-defined publishing ethics standard in > computing, similar to the publishing standard established for biomedical > research. > > These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable > knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation was > built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance the > reputation of the publication that provides this information. While our > reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical journals, > I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible steps to > protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the best > sources. > > Andreas > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
