title: Perceptions of conflict of interest disclosures among peer reviewers.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (COI) is intended to help reviewers assess the impact of potential bias on the validity of research results; however, there have been no empiric assessments of how reviewers understand and use disclosures in article evaluation. We investigate reviewers' perceptions of potential bias introduced by particular author disclosures, and whether reviewer characteristics are associated with a greater likelihood of perceiving bias.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the 911 active reviewers from the Annals of Emergency Medicine, 410 were randomly selected and invited to complete our web-based, 3-part survey. We completed descriptive analysis of all survey responses and compared those responses across reviewer characteristics using 2 × 2 analyses and the Fisher exact test. We had a response rate of 54%. The majority of reviewers surveyed reported a high level of skepticism regarding financial relationships between authors and industry without a clear or consistent translation of that skepticism into the self-reported actions that characterize manuscript assessment. Only 13% of respondents believed physician consultants authoring articles based on company data are likely to have unlimited data access. 54% believed that bias most likely exists with any honorarium, regardless of monetary amount. Between 46% and 64%, depending on the type of financial relationship disclosed, reported that their recommendation for publication remains unchanged. Respondents reporting personal financial ties to industry were less likely to perceive bias in industry relationships and less likely to believe that bias exists with any monetary amount of honoraria.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We recommend that the monetary amount of all financial relationships be reported with manuscript submissions, lead authors certify that they have unrestricted access to data, and reviewers disclose any financial ties to industry whether or not they are related to the manuscript under review. Further research is required to better understand reviewers' perceptions of financial relationships between authors and industry in order to develop clear and consistent guidelines for incorporating the perception of potential bias into manuscript assessments.
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, Alameda County Medical Center, Oakland, California, United States of America. slippert@stanford.edu
authors.forename: Suzanne
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Lippert
authors.forename: Michael L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Callaham
authors.forename: Bernard
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Lo
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016265:Conflict of Interest; D030881:Disclosure; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D020407:Internet; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017712:Peer Review, Research
references.citation: JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):229-31
references.pmid: 9676664
references.citation: Lancet. 1998 Jul 25;352(9124):301-5
references.pmid: 9690424
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):625-9
references.pmid: 10391655
references.citation: Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;32(3 Pt 1):310-7
references.pmid: 9737492
references.citation: JAMA. 2010 Mar 24;303(12):1196-8
references.pmid: 20332409
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2008 Aug 19;149(4):251-8
references.pmid: 18711155
references.citation: JAMA. 2010 Oct 6;304(13):1496
references.pmid: 20924020
references.citation: BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):673
references.pmid: 14996698
references.citation: JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):149-51
references.pmid: 8015129
references.citation: JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2781-3
references.pmid: 12038910
references.citation: J R Soc Med. 2008 Oct;101(10):507-14
references.pmid: 18840867
references.citation: BMJ. 2004 Mar 27;328(7442):742-3
references.pmid: 14980983
references.citation: Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;32(3 Pt 1):318-22
references.pmid: 9737493
references.citation: Ann Emerg Med. 2002 Sep;40(3):323-8
references.pmid: 12192358
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Oct;108(4):979-85
references.pmid: 17012462