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

Determinants of abstract acceptance for the Digestive Diseases Week – a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: The Digestive Diseases Week (DDW) is the major meeting for presentation of research in gastroenterology. The acceptance of an abstract for presentation at this meeting is the most important determinant of subsequent full publication. We wished to examine the determinants of abstract acceptance for this meeting. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed, based on abstracts submitted to the DDW. All 17,205 abstracts submitted from 1992 to 1995 were reviewed for acceptance, country of origin and research type (controlled clinical trials (CCT), other clinical research (OCR), basic science (BSS)). A random sub-sample (n = 1,000) was further evaluated for formal abstract quality, statistical significance of study results and sample size. RESULTS: 326 CCT, 455 OCR and 219 BSS abstracts were evaluated in detail. Abstracts from N/W Europe (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3–0.6), S/E Europe (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.6) and non-Western countries (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.5) were less likely to be accepted than North-American contributions when controlling for research type. In addition, the OR for the acceptance for studies with negative results as compared to those with positive results was 0.4 (95% CI 0.3–0.7). A high abstract quality score was also weakly associated with acceptance rates (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–2.0). CONCLUSIONS: North-American contributions and reports with statistically positive results have higher acceptance rates at the AGA. Formal abstract quality was also predictive for acceptance

Sexually transmitted diseases: a neglected public health priority.

Sexually transmitted diseases remain uncontrolled although millions of cases occur annually in the United States. The advent of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), which is also a sexually transmitted disease, has not altered this situation. The major portion of federal funding for sexually transmitted diseases is allocated to a search for an AIDS vaccine or cure. State health department funding for sexually transmitted diseases, although only a small fraction of the $1.3 billion AIDS research budget of the National Institutes of Health, is largely consumed by AIDS. A single adequately funded sexually transmitted disease control program that applies well-established public health principles for the control of communicable diseases would make sense. However, a consensus to develop and support such a program does not exist in the United States