Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Nov 18;15:446.
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-446.

Publication Practices and Standards: Recommendations From GSK Vaccines' Author Survey

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Publication Practices and Standards: Recommendations From GSK Vaccines' Author Survey

Isabelle Camby et al. Trials. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Evolving standards of good publication practice (GPP) and a survey conducted in 2009 of authors, who were investigators and researchers not employed by the company prompted changes to GSK Vaccines' publication practices. We conducted a follow-up survey in 2012 to assess the company's revised practices and to evaluate understanding of GPP among investigators and researchers who had previously authored at least one publication in collaboration with GSK Vaccines.

Methods: The 50-question web-based survey addressed authoring practices and transparency of decision-making. Investigators and researchers (n = 1,273) who had authored at least one publication reporting on GSK Vaccines-sponsored human research since 2007, were invited to participate. Responses to 37 closed questions are presented. The remaining 13 questions were open-ended or did not concern publication practices.

Results: A total of 415 external authors (32.6%) responded. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria were clear to most respondents (78.1%); 7.7% found they were unclear. The majority of participants (86.8%) found GSK Vaccines' authorship questionnaire a suitable tool to assess eligibility for authorship as per the ICMJE criteria. However, only 68.5% felt that the outcome of the questionnaire is communicated appropriately and 58.3% felt well informed on changes in authorship. Nearly two-thirds (62.9%) of respondents felt that having a pharmaceutical company employee as lead author makes manuscript acceptance less likely. Access to relevant data was regarded as sufficient by 78.5% of respondents. Briefing meetings before publication start, publication steering committees and core writing teams were recognized as valuable publication practices. Professional medical writing support was seen as adding value to publication development by 87.7% of participants. Most respondents agreed that manuscript discussions should start early, with 81.7% stating that they were in favor of introducing a formalized 'author agreement' at the publication start.

Conclusions: GSK Vaccines made changes to its publication practices to ensure improved transparency and better involvement of external authors. The results of this survey suggest that these changes have been effective to a large extent. They confirm the need for effective and timely communication, as well as transparent processes for authorship and decision-making during publication development. The identified gaps in GPP will help to guide further improvements to the company's policies on publication practices.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Profile of participants: main research area and number of articles published in the last five years. Percentages might not add up to 100% because of rounding.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Experience of the GSK Vaccines authorship questionnaire (based on ICMJE criteria). Answers to the question ‘How much do you agree/disagree with the following statements?’ (n = 273).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Transparency of GSK Vaccines’ publication practices and decision-making. Answers to the question ‘How much do you agree/disagree with the following statements?’ (n =415). aDisclosure of medical writing support, conflicts of interest, contributorship and acknowledgement. bSuch as ICMJE, GPP2, CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CHEERS and so on. Percentages might not add up to 100% because of rounding.
Figure 4
Figure 4
ICMJE authorship criteria. Answers to the question ‘How would you rate the clarity of the ICMJE criteria to evaluate authorship?’ (n = 415). Percentages might not add up to 100% because of rounding.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Professional medical writers and industry authorship. Answers to the question ‘How much do you agree/disagree with the following statements?’ (n = 415). Percentages might not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 4 articles

References

    1. Graf C, Battisti WP, Bridges D, Bruce-Winkler V, Conaty JM, Ellison JM, Field EA, Gurr JA, Marx ME, Patel M, Sanes-Miller C, Yarker YE. Research Methods & Reporting. Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelines. BMJ. 2009;339:b4330. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4330. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hart RA. Acknowledging the elephant in the room: conflict of interest in industry-sponsored clinical research. Spine J. 2011;11:703–704. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.08.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bond K, Spooner C, Tjosvold L, Lemiere C, Rowe BH. The nature and influence of pharmaceutical industry involvement in asthma trials. Can Respir J. 2012;19:267–271. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vedula SS, Goldman PS, Rona IJ, Greene TM, Dickersin K. Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin litigation. Trials. 2012;13:136. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-136. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:MR000033. - PubMed

Publication types

Feedback