Template:Did you know nominations/Conflicts of interest in academic publishing
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Conflicts of interest in academic publishing[edit]
Panel discusses conflicts of interest in academic publishing.
...that "supplements" to an academic journal may be paid publications, not peer-reviewed by the journal staff? "Some medical journals benefit from the publication of subsidized symposia under the name of the parent journal. In a study published in 1992, 42% of 625 symposia published within medical journals had a single pharmaceutical sponsor. Published pharmaceutical‐sponsored symposia were more likely to use misleading titles and refer to drugs by their brand name, and less likely to be peer‐reviewed with the same degree of rigor as other journal articles." Ray, J. G. (2002-12-01). "Judging the judges: the role of journal editors". QJM: An International Journal of Medicine. 95 (12): 769–774. doi:10.1093/qjmed/95.12.769. ISSN 1460-2725. PMID 12454319.- ALT1:...that academic journals managing conflicts of interest often apply stricter transparency standards to their authors than to themselves? "Aware of such external pressures, journals now rightly expect authors to consider and declare all potential sources of conflict [of interest]...Journals have been keen to publish on the potential misdemeanors of authors, but have been less interested in those of journals and publishers." Editors, The PLoS Medicine (2010-10-26). "Increased Responsibility and Transparency in an Era of Increased Visibility". PLOS Medicine. 7 (10): –1000364. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000364. ISSN 1549-1676. PMC 2964334. PMID 21048984.
{{cite journal}}:|last=has generic name (help), Section G. "Supplements, Theme Issues, and Special Series", Fees, F. (2016), Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (PDF) Conflicts-of-interest section, [Last update on 2015 Dec]
- ALT1:...that academic journals managing conflicts of interest often apply stricter transparency standards to their authors than to themselves? "Aware of such external pressures, journals now rightly expect authors to consider and declare all potential sources of conflict [of interest]...Journals have been keen to publish on the potential misdemeanors of authors, but have been less interested in those of journals and publishers." Editors, The PLoS Medicine (2010-10-26). "Increased Responsibility and Transparency in an Era of Increased Visibility". PLOS Medicine. 7 (10): –1000364. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000364. ISSN 1549-1676. PMC 2964334. PMID 21048984.
- Reviewed: Ameiurus platycephalus
- Comment: I don't think an image of a journal supplement would add much, but if we need images I could probably dig one up
Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 23:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
New enough (created by HLHJ on 29 March 2018), long enough (17,394 characters "readable prose size"). The article still has three "citation needed tags" (D6) and references 7, 8, 9, 40 and 53 are bare URLs (D3). Main hook is no good; journal staff do not do the peer reviews. (This could be fixed by removing the last three words.) ALT1 approved. QPQ done. No need for an image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- ALT3: ...that academic journals' "supplements" and "symposia" may be paid publications, neither independently peer-reviewed nor edited by journal staff?
- ALT3 approved Still have {{citation required}} tags and bare URLs Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've fixed those, apologies for the delay. But I found another uncited statement, and am still working on finding a source. Any improvements to the hook are welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: One month later, this is still tagged as [better source needed] from March and [citation needed] from April. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've fixed those, apologies for the delay. But I found another uncited statement, and am still working on finding a source. Any improvements to the hook are welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- ALT3 approved Still have {{citation required}} tags and bare URLs Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@HLHJ: The article still has an unsourced statement. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. Found the source I was looking for, got better sources for one better-source-neededs, changed and sourced the second, and made a few additions. Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your patience. I prefer ALT3, as more likely to be of interest to front-page-readers. Why I skipped ALT 2 I do not know. HLHJ (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Added an image below the "Please do not edit above this line" line, least it be needed. It's not an easy topic to photograph, but Commons managed it! HLHJ (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to see whether all the issues have been addressed. Pinging original reviewer Hawkeye7 and later commenter David Eppstein, in case either wishes to review this further. (I did query Narutolovehinata5, but theirs was just a passing comment.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nearly there. Fn 50 is in error, and the last sentences of "Interests of research participants" and "False statements of COIs" require references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed that missing ref, don't know how I neglected to add it. I modified and sourced the latter statements. Thanks to Yoninah for fixing my formatting, and reviewers, especially Hawkeye7, for patience.
- Any comments on the image captions? As BlueMoonset says, the original caption is a bit long ("Conflicts of interest in academic publishing undermine the reliability of some journal articles cited in Wikipedia. The Sponsored Point of View panel discusses this problem."). On the other hand, the second, nicely snappy one ("Panel discusses conflicts of interest in academic publishing") is more generic, and it seems reasonable to assume that the main page audience is interested in Wikipedia. How about "Panel on conflicts of interest in academic publishing and their effects on Wikipedia" or "Conflicts of interest in academic publishing, and their effects on Wikipedia, in a panel discussion"? "Conflicts of interest in academic publishing undermine Wikipedia sources; The Sponsored Point of View panel discussion" gives more context but is longer. HLHJ (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nearly there. Fn 50 is in error, and the last sentences of "Interests of research participants" and "False statements of COIs" require references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Good to go now I think. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)