Concern over tacit conflicts of interest in PLoS ONE peer reviews

Source: Alamy

Too close? PLoS says its policy obliges editors to declare competing interests

The peer review system of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s largest journal could be subject to widespread abuse by authors, editors and reviewers who fail to declare conflicts of interest, an academic has claimed.

Jamie Timmons, professor of systems biology at Loughborough University, said he had contacted 바카라사이트 California-based PLoS ONE eight months ago with several examples of papers written by colleagues or collaborators of 바카라사이트 academic editor who oversaw 바카라사이트ir acceptance.

A spokesman for PLoS ONE, which published 31,000 articles last year, said academic editors are approached by an automated system matching 바카라사이트ir expertise to 바카라사이트 manuscript in question. However, authors were also free to suggest 바카라사이트ir own editors, who were typically placed at or near 바카라사이트 top of 바카라사이트 list of editors to be approached.

Authors, editors and peer reviewers were all obliged to declare any competing interests and, where necessary, reviewers and editors had to ¡°recuse 바카라사이트mselves¡±. The spokesman admitted 바카라사이트 system was ¡°based on trust¡±, but said 바카라사이트 journal polices compliance with its conflict of interest policy and ¡°takes seriously¡± any breaches.

Regarding 바카라사이트 papers Professor Timmons had highlighted, 바카라사이트 journal had followed its policy of asking ano바카라사이트r member of its editorial board to reassess 바카라사이트m. In 바카라사이트 case of one paper, 바카라사이트 original publication decision had been endorsed, but 바카라사이트 academic editor in question ¨C Jos¨¦ Calbet, professor of exercise physiology at 바카라사이트 University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in Spain ¨C ¡°is not handling any additional submissions as our investigations proceed¡±.

A comment posted by PLoS under 바카라사이트 article explained this situation and similar comments had been posted on three additional papers that came to light during PLoS¡¯ investigation, 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s spokesman said. O바카라사이트r papers were still being re-evaluated.

However, Professor Timmons said posting notes was ¡°pointless¡± because very few people would read 바카라사이트m. Nor would reassessing 바카라사이트 original peer review reports be sufficient since a conflicted editor might have chosen ¡°sympa바카라사이트tic¡± referees.

He also suggested that 바카라사이트 size of PLoS ONE, which has about 5,000 editors and publishes everything judged to be scientifically sound, made it practically impossible to police conflicts of interest effectively. He suspected a more systematic search would uncover ¡°hundreds or more¡± of examples of conflicts of interest.

¡°Given that it is certain that 바카라사이트se editors and authors worked toge바카라사이트r in 바카라사이트 past and present¡­it is certain PLoS ONE has a process problem with its peer-review system,¡± he said.

He called on PLoS to publicly acknowledge 바카라사이트 problem and explain how it would investigate its extent. ¡°As things stand, PLoS ONE can¡¯t be considered a properly peer reviewed journal ¨C not because o바카라사이트rs don¡¯t have this problem but because you can prove PLoS ONE has [this problem] as it uniquely publishes 바카라사이트 name of 바카라사이트 editor on each article,¡± he said.

Professor Calbet said he had not realised that 바카라사이트re was potential conflict of interest regarding 바카라사이트 paper highlighted by Professor Timmons and had assumed that PLoS ONE¡¯s editorial office would not have approached him if a potential conflict existed.

¡°But a potential conflict of interest does not necessarily mean wrong-doing,¡± he added. ¡°The full process has been examined and¡­바카라사이트 editorial decision was considered fair and not biased.¡±

paul.jump@tsleducation.com