Abstract
Academics in sports medicine as well as other medical fields are generally expected to publish research and opinions in peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review process is intended to protect against the publication of flawed research and unsubstantiated claims. However, both financial and non-financial competing interests may result in sub-optimal results by affecting investigators, editors, peer reviewers, academic institutions, and publishers. In this article, we focus on the non-financial competing interests created in our current academic system. Because these competing interests are embedded in our current scholastic framework, the potential biases are difficult to quantify. To minimize the effect of these competing interests, we review and highlight some underlying incentives for each stakeholder and some potential solutions to mitigate their effects.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178–82.
Birukou A, Wakeling JR, Bartolini C, Casati F, Marchese M, Mirylenka K, et al. Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Front Comput Neurosci. 2011;5:56. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00056.
Rao TS, Andrade C. The MMR vaccine and autism: sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Indian J Psychiatry. 2011;53(2):95–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.82529.
Stead WW. The complex and multifaceted aspects of conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1765–7.
Bryan CJ, Yeager DS, O’Brien JM. Replicator degrees of freedom allow publication of misleading failures to replicate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(51):25535–45. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910951116.
Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(11):1359–66.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Author responsibilities—conflicts of interest. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2017 [cited 2023-05-08]. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/.
Fontanarosa P, Bauchner H. Conflict of interest and medical journals. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1768–71.
McCoy MS, Emanuel EJ. Why there are no “potential” conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1721–2.
Resnik D. Disclosing and managing non-financial conflicts of interest in scientific publications. Res Ethics. 2023;19(2):121–38.
Flier JS. Conflict of interest among medical school faculty: achieving a coherent and objective approach. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1731–2.
McKinney RE, Pierce HH. Strategies for addressing a broader definition of conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1727–8.
Vickers A. Interpreting data from randomized trials: the Scandinavian prostatectomy study illustrates two common errors. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2005;2(9):404–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0294.
Nejstgaard CH, Bero L, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen AW, Jorgensen KJ, Le M, et al. Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review. BMJ. 2020;371: m4234. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4234.
Bero L. Addressing bias and conflict of interest among biomedical researchers. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1723–4.
Ostengaard L, Lundh A, Tjornhoj-Thomsen T, Abdi S, Gelle MHA, Stewart LA, et al. Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study. BMJ. 2020;371: m3764. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3764.
Cain DM, Loewenstein G, Moore DA. The dirt on coming clean: perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. J Leg Stud. 2005;34(1):1–25.
Cain DM, Detsky AS. Everyone’s a little bit biased (even physicians). JAMA. 2008;299(24):2893–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.24.2893.
PLoS Medicine Editors. Does conflict of interest disclosure worsen bias? PLoS Med. 2012;9(4):e1001210.
Bero L. What is in a name? Nonfinancial influences on the outcomes of systematic reviews and guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(11):1239–41.
Sox HC. Conflict of interest in practice guidelines panels. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1739–40.
Galea S, Saitz R. Funding, institutional conflicts of interest, and schools of public health: realities and solutions. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1735–6.
Bunzel DL. Universities sell their brands. J Prod Brand Manage. 2007;16(2):152–3.
Goodhart CA, Goodhart C. Problems of monetary management: the UK experience. Berlin: Springer; 1984.
Strathern M. ‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British University system. Eur Rev. 1997;5(3):305–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3%3c305::AID-EURO184%3e3.0.CO;2-4.
Bullock GS, Ward P, Peters S, Arundale AJH, Murray A, Impellizzeri FM, et al. Call for open science in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2022-105719.
Mansmann U, Locher C, Prasser F, Weissgerber T, Sax U, Posch M, et al. Implementing clinical trial data sharing requires training a new generation of biomedical researchers. Nat Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-02080-y.
Petrova E, Dewing J, Camilleri M. Confidentiality in participatory research: challenges from one study. Nurs Ethics. 2016;23(4):442–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733014564909.
Turcotte-Tremblay AM, Mc S-C. A reflection on the challenge of protecting confidentiality of participants while disseminating research results locally. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19(Suppl 1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0279-0.
Committee on Publication Ethics. Committee on publication ethics (COPE). 2023 [cited 2023 2023-05-08. https://publicationethics.org/about/our-organisation.
Bullock GS, Ward P, Kluzek S, Hughes T, Shanley E, Arundale AJH, et al. Paving the way for greater open science in sports and exercise medicine: navigating the barriers to adopting open and accessible data practices. Br J Sports Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-107225.
Olsen L, DePalma L, Evans JH. Self-interested and altruistic motivations in volunteering for clinical trials: a more complex relationship. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020;15(5):443–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264620914463.
Soule MC, Beale EE, Suarez L, Beach SR, Mastromauro CA, Celano CM, et al. Understanding motivations to participate in an observational research study: why do patients enroll? Soc Work Health Care. 2016;55(3):231–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2015.1114064.
Page MJ, Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Egger M. Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta-analyses of health research: a review. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(2):248–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1468.
Dhiman P, Ma J, Andaur Navarro CL, Speich B, Bullock G, Damen JAA, et al. Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;157:120–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.012.
Hamilton G, Meeuwisse WH, Emery CA, Steele RJ, Shrier I. Past injury as a risk factor: an illustrative example where appearances are deceiving. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:941–8.
Shrier I, Piche A, Steele RJ. First concussion did not increase the risk of subsequent concussion when patients were managed appropriately. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(7):389–90. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-099104.
Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, Glasziou P, Sham MH, Barbour V, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7): e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737.
National Institute for Health and Care Research. Clinical practice research datalink (CPRD). [cited 2023-0508]. https://cprd.com/.
Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5(1):6.
Gottlieb JD, Bressler NM. How should journals handle the conflict of interest of their editors?: who watches the “watchers”? JAMA. 2017;317(17):1757–8.
Smith R. Problems with peer review and alternatives. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988;296(6624):774–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.296.6624.774.
Ioannidis JPA, Thombs BD. A user’s guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors. Eur J Clin Invest. 2019;49(9): e13151. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13151.
PubPeer. PubPeer. 2023 [cited 2023-05-08]. https://pubpeer.com/.
Peer Community In. Peer Community In. 2023 [cited 2023-05-08]. https://peercommunityin.org/.
Retraction Watch. Retraction Watch. 2023 [cited 2023-05-08]. https://retractionwatch.com/.
Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Phys. 2015;18(1):E1–14.
Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde M, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349: g4145. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4145.
Nosek BA, Lakens D. Registered reports: a method to increase the credibility of published results. Soc Psychol. 2014;45:137–41. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192.
Chambers CD, Tzavella L. The past, present and future of registered reports. Nat Hum Behav. 2022;6(1):29–42.
Chambers C. The registered reports revolution lessons in cultural reform. Significance. 2019;16(4):23–7.
Peer Community In. Peer Community In: Registered reports. 2023 [cited 2023-12-18]. https://rr.peercommunityin.org/.
Easley TJ. Medical journals, publishers, and conflict of interest. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1759–60.
Coalition S. Plan S: making full and immediate open access a reality. France: European Science Foundation; 2019.
Liverpool L. Open-access reformers launch next bold publishing plan. Nature. 2023;623(7986):238–40. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03342-6.
Shrier I, Schmid C. Plan S: overlooked hybrid journal model. Science. 2019;363(6426):461–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7335.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Ioannidis and Asbjørn Hróbjartsson for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This work was unfunded.
Non-Financial Interests
IS and FMI have experience as Editor-in-Chief of peer-reviewed journals, and all authors have been Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members for multiple journals. The issues raised in this article have been a concern of all authors for a long period of time, but this topic is not related to their primary research interests or grant funding.
Conflict of Interests
Financial Interests: IS, FMI, and SDS are all employed by universities. The primary responsibilities of IS and FMI are to obtain grants and publish studies. SDS is primarily employed as a practicing physician and educator, but obtaining grants and publishing studies are included as part of his performance evaluation.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Author Contribution Statement
All authors contributed equally to the ideas and solutions presented in this Current Opinion article.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Shrier, I., Impellizzeri, F.M. & Stovitz, S.D. Identifying and Minimizing Incentives for Competing Interests in Sports Medicine Publications. Sports Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02037-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02037-w