Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted flaws in current scientific publication practices, with suboptimal quality being particularly apparent during the emergency. In a preliminary study we showed that it was possible to detect such “self-promotion journals” by a simple measure: the proportion of contributions published in a journal by any single author. The idea is that Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific (PPMP) author is a simple measure that can be used as a red flag to identify journals that are suspected of biased editorial decision-making. Complementally, a more complex measure like the Gini index, largely used in econometry to describe ressources repartition inequalities, offer the ability to explore inhomogeneity in authorship volume related to more than one author.

International audience; PROJET SUNSHINE 10 ans de recherche et 6 publications autour de la relation médecin-industrie en France. Les conflits d'intérêt sont un problème sociétal plus qu'individuel.

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices., Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. This study explores the relationship between hyper-prolific authors and a journal’s editorial team, finding a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications.

Context: The Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific (PPMP) author is a simple measure that can be used as a red flag to identify journals that are suspected of biased editorial decision-making. Complementally, a more complex measure like the Gini index was used. Methods: For all biomedical journals referenced in the National Library of Medicine, with any attributed Broad Subject Terms, and at least 50 papers with authors names published between 2015 and 2019, we calculated and describe the PPMP and Gini index of distribution of articles among authors. Discussion: Our results reveal relationships between authors and editors that question the necessary independence of scientific publishing. Limits of this study included automated calculations with a risk of inaccuracy and a focus on journals indexed with NLM Broad Subject Terms that may have selected the more established journals.; Context : Le pourcentages d’articles par l’auteur le plus prolifique (PPMP) est une mesure simple pouvant être utilisée comme première alerte sur des journaux suspect de pratiques éditoriales biaisées. De même, une mesure plus complexe comme l’index de Gini a aussi été utilisée. Methods : Pour tous les journaux biomédicaux, référencés dans la National Library of Medecine, avec au moins un Broad Subject Term attribué, et au moins 50 articles publiés avec les noms de leurs auteurs entre 2015 et 2019, nous avons calculé et décris le PPMP et l’index de Gini. Discussion : Nos résultats révèlent des relations entre auteurs et éditeurs qui interrogent sur l’indispensable indépendance des publications scientifiques. Les limites de cette étude incluent un risque d’incertitude sur les calculs des indices et une restriction aux journaux avec un Broad Subject Term attribué par la NLM qui peuvent avoir sélectionné des journaux plus établis.

International audience; Aims - To systematically assess the level of evidence for psychotropic drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods - Cross-sectional analysis of all European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and meta-analyses of the many studies reported in these EPARs. Eligible EPARs were identified from the EMA's website and individual study reports were requested from the Agency when necessary. All marketing authorisation applications (defined by the drug, the route of administration and given indications) for psychotropic medications for adults (including drugs used in psychiatry and addictology) were considered. EPARs solely based on bioequivalence studies were excluded. Our primary outcome measure was the presence of robust evidence of comparative effectiveness, defined as at least two 'positive' superiority studies against an active comparator. Various other features of the approvals were assessed, such as evidence of non-inferiority v. active comparator and superiority v. placebo. For studies with available data, effect sizes were computed and pooled using a random effect meta-analysis for each dose of each drug in each indication. Results - Twenty-seven marketing authorisations were identified. For one, comparative effectiveness was explicitly considered as not needed in the EPAR. Of those remaining, 21/26 (81%) did not provide any evidence of superiority against an active comparator, 2/26 (8%) were based on at least two trials showing superiority against active comparator and three (11%) were based on one positive trial; 1/26 provided evidence for two positive non-inferiority analyses v. active comparator and seven (26%) provided evidence for one. In total, 20/27 (74%) evaluations reported evidence of superiority v. placebo with two or more trials. Among the meta-analyses of initiation studies against active comparator (57 available comparisons), the median effect size was 0.051 (range -0.503; 0.318). Twenty approved evaluations (74%) reported evidence of superiority v. placebo on the basis of two or more initiation trials and seven based on a single trial. Among meta-analyses of initiation studies against placebo (125 available comparisons), the median effect size was -0.283 (range -0.820; 0.091). Importantly, among the 89 study reports requested on the EMA website, only 19 were made available 1 year after our requests. Conclusions - The evidence for psychiatric drug approved by the EMA was in general poor. Small to modest effects v. placebo were considered sufficient in indications where an earlier drug exists. Data retrieval was incomplete after 1 year despite EMA's commitment to transparency. Improvements are needed.