Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflict of interest and medical publication

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the important causes of bias in the medical literature is failure to publish data because it is “negative”. Usually, this is due to failure to write a manuscript and submit it for publication. Since publication is an essential part of research and patients have been recruited into a study in the belief that they are participating in medical research, there is an ethical commitment to publish the observations made on volunteer subjects. This can be enforced by ethical committees if they refuse to approve studies of investigators and sponsors who have failed to publish earlier studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Quick J. (2001) Maintaining the integrity of the clinical evidence base. Bulletin of the WHO 79(12): 1093.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Montaner J.S.G., O-Shaughnessy M.V. and Schechter M.T. (2001) Industry-sponsored clinical research: a double-edged sword. Lancet 358: 1893–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bodenheimer, T. (2000) Uneasy Alliance. Health Policy Report 342: 1539–1544.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sox H. (2001) Sponsorship, Authorship, and Accountability, Annals of Internal Medicine 135: 463–4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dickersin K. and Min Y-I. (1993) Publication bias: The problem that won’t go away. Annals NY Acad Sci 703: 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weber E.J., Callaham M.L., Wears R.L. and Barton C. (1998) Unpublished Research from a Medical Specialty Meeting. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 257–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Callaham M.L., Wears R.L., Weber E.J., Barton C, and Young G. (1998) Positive-Outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the Outcome of Research abstracts Submitted to a Scientific Meeting. JAMA 280: 254–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Misakian A. and Bero L.A. (1998) Publication Bias and Research on Passive Smoking. JAMA 280: 250–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chalmers I. (1990) Under reporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 263: 1405–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dickerson K. (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263: 1385–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Horton R. (1997) Medical editors trial amnesty. Lancet 350: 1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reidenberg M.M. (1998) Decreasing publication bias. Clin Pharmacol Ther 63: 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Savulescu J., Chalmers I. and Blunt J. (1996) Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability. British Medical Journal 313: 1390–3.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chalmers I. (2002) Lessons for research ethics committees. Lancet 359; 174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Reidenberg M.M. (2001) Releasing the grip of big pharma. Lancet 358: 664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Reidenberg M.M. (2002) To the Editor. NEJM 346: 290–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goodare H., Dimner C. and Page K. (2002) Letter. Lancet 359: 442

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Pharmacology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 1300 York Avenue, 10021, New York, New York, USA

    Marcus M. Reidenberg MD

Authors
  1. Marcus M. Reidenberg MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus M. Reidenberg MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reidenberg, M.M. Conflict of interest and medical publication. SCI ENG ETHICS 8, 455–457 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0067-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0067-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation