The publication of ethically uncertain research: attitudes and practices of journal editors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Publication of ethically uncertain research occurs despite well-published guidelines set forth in documents such as the Declaration of Helsinki. Such guidelines exist to aide editorial staff in making decisions regarding ethical acceptability of manuscripts submitted for publication, yet examples of ethically suspect and uncertain publication exist. Our objective was to survey journal editors regarding practices and attitudes surrounding such dilemmas.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Editor-in-chief of each of the 103 English-language journals from the 2005 Abridged Index Medicus list publishing original research were asked to complete a survey sent to them by email between September-December 2007.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A response rate of 33% (n = 34) was obtained from the survey. 18% (n = 6) of respondents had published ethically uncertain or suspect research within the last 10 years. 85% (n = 29) of respondents stated they would always reject ethically uncertain articles submitted for publication on ethical grounds alone. 12% (n = 4) of respondents stated they would approach each submission on a case-by-case basis. 3% (n = 1) stated they would be likely to publish such research, but only with accompanying editorial. Only 38% (n = 13) give reviewers explicit instruction to reject submissions on ethical grounds if found wanting.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Editorial compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki in rejecting research that is conducted unethically was difficult to ascertain because of a poor response rate despite multiple attempts using different modalities. Of those who did respond, the majority do reject ethically suspect research but few explicitly advise reviewers to do so. In this study editors did not take advantage of the opportunity to describe their support for the rejection of the publication of unethical research.</p

The General Practice Care of People With Intellectual Disability: Barriers and Solutions

A questionnaire exploring general practitioners' (GPs) perceptions of the barriers and solutions to providing health care to people with intellectual disability was sent to 912 randomly selected GPs throughout Australia. a response rate of 58% was obtained. Results indicated that numerous barriers compromised the quality of health care able to be provided to people with intellectual disability. communications difficulties with patients and other health professionals, and problems in obtaining patient histories stood out as the two most significant barriers. A range of other barriers were identified, including GPs' lack of training and experience, patients' poor compliance with management plans, consultation time constraints, difficulties in problem determination, examination difficulties, poor continuity of care, and GPs' inadequate knowledge of the services and resources available. General practitioners also suggested numerous solutions to these barriers, and emphasized the need for increased opportunities for education and training in intellectual disability. The GPs showed an overwhelming interest to be involved in further education. Other major solutions included increasing consultation duration or frequency, proactively involving families and carers in patients' ongoing health care, and increasing remuneration