ABSTRACT The objective of this scoping review was to systematically review the literature on how non-financial conflicts of interest (nfCOI) are defined and evaluated, and the strategies suggested for their management in health-related and biomedical journals. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for peer reviewed studies published in English between 1970 and December 2023 that addressed at least one of the following: the definition, evaluation, or management of non-financial conflicts of interest. From 658 studies, 190 studies were included in the review. nfCOI were discussed most commonly in empirical (22%; 42/190), theoretical (15%; 29/190) and “other” studies (18%; 34/190) – including commentary, perspective, and opinion articles. nfCOI were addressed frequently in the research domain (36%; 68/190), publication domain (29%; 55/190) and clinical practice domain (17%; 32/190). Attitudes toward nfCOI and their management were divided into two distinct groups. The first larger group claimed that nfCOI were problematic and required some form of management, whereas the second group argued that nfCOI were not problematic, and therefore, did not require management. Despite ongoing debates about the nature, definition, and management of nfCOI, many articles included in this review agreed that serious consideration needs to be given to the prevalence, impact and optimal mitigation of non-financial COI.

ABSTRACT This letter addresses the significance of conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses using the appropriate methods. It also highlights the importance of implementing the latest guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-2020, which ensures the maintenance of ethics, integrity, and accountability while reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models continue to expand in both access and capability. As these models have evolved, the number of academic journals in medicine and healthcare which have explored policies regarding AI-generated text has increased. The implementation of such policies requires accurate AI detection tools. Inaccurate detectors risk unnecessary penalties for human authors and/or may compromise the effective enforcement of guidelines against AI-generated content. Yet, the accuracy of AI text detection tools in identifying human-written versus AI-generated content has been found to vary across published studies. This experimental study used a sample of behavioral health publications and found problematic false positive and false negative rates from both free and paid AI detection tools. The study assessed 100 research articles from 2016–2018 in behavioral health and psychiatry journals and 200 texts produced by AI chatbots (100 by “ChatGPT” and 100 by “Claude”). The free AI detector showed a median of 27.2% for the proportion of academic text identified as AI-generated, while commercial software Originality.AI demonstrated better performance but still had limitations, especially in detecting texts generated by Claude. These error rates raise doubts about relying on AI detectors to enforce strict policies around AI text generation in behavioral health publications.

ABSTRACT The three steps of a typical forensic statistical analysis are (1) verify that the raw data file is correct; (2) verify that the statistical analysis file derived from the raw data file is correct; and (3) verify that the statistical analyses are appropriate. We illustrate applying these three steps to a manuscript which was subsequently retracted, focusing on step 1. In the absence of an external source for comparison, criteria for assessing the raw data file were internal consistency and plausibility. A forensic statistical analysis isn’t like a murder mystery, and it many circumstances discovery of a mechanism for falsification or fabrication might not be realistic.

ABSTRACT Resnik, Hosseini and Rasmussen’s take on universities having conflict of interest (COI), and should engage an independent research integrity organization in investigating research misconduct (RM) allegations against top officials, is prudent and timely. COI could be conceived either against or for in the processes toward the conviction of a respondent. For the latter, we need look no further than another recent Harvard case involving Francesca Gino.

ABSTRACT This article addresses the question of the possibility of medical research without patents, a major issue in healthcare research and policy. We discuss and evaluate the relevant scientific, economic, societal, and moral aspects of our system of funding and organizing the research, development, manufacture and sale of prescription drugs. The focus is on the patent practices of big pharmaceutical companies. We analyze and critically assess the main features and impacts of these practices. In a positive sense, we propose an approach to organizing and funding drug research that prioritizes its public interest rather than its privatization through patenting. For these purposes, we first demonstrate that producing prescription drugs through patenting has serious drawbacks. Second, we develop a concrete alternative (medical research without patents) that is shown to be scientifically, socially and morally preferable, economically and financially profitable, and socio-politically and organizationally practicable.

ABSTRACT Group authorship (also known as corporate authorship, team authorship, consortium authorship) refers to attribution practices that use the name of a collective (be it team, group, project, corporation, or consortium) in the authorship byline. Data shows that group authorships are on the rise but thus far, in scholarly discussions about authorship, they have not gained much specific attention. Group authorship can minimize tensions within the group about authorship order and the criteria used for inclusion/exclusion of individual authors. However, current use of group authorships has drawbacks, such as ethical challenges associated with the attribution of credit and responsibilities, legal challenges regarding how copyrights are handled, and technical challenges related to the lack of persistent identifiers (PIDs), such as ORCID, for groups. We offer two recommendations: 1) Journals should develop and share context-specific and unambiguous guidelines for group authorship, for which they can use the four baseline requirements offered in this paper; 2) Using persistent identifiers for groups and consistent reporting of members’ contributions should be facilitated through devising PIDs for groups and linking these to the ORCIDs of their individual contributors and the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the published item.

ABSTRACT The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using InCites. Metadata about the items was then gathered from Web of Science and Scopus. Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider’s timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

ABSTRACT Investigating research misconduct allegations against top officials can create significant conflicts of interest (COIs) for universities that may require changes to existing oversight frameworks. One way of addressing some of these challenges is to develop policies and procedures that specifically address investigation of allegations of misconduct involving top university officials. Steps can also be taken now regardless of whether such a body is created. Federal and university research misconduct regulations and policies may need to be revised to provide institutions with clearer guidance on how to deal with misconduct allegations against top officials. For their part, institutions may benefit from proactively creating and transparently disclosing their own processes for independent investigation of research misconduct allegations against senior officials.