BackgroundIt is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies.ResultsOf 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors’ associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services.ConclusionsOnly a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published record in biomedicine.

Purpose To assess financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies among the most influential biomedical journals publishing original research. Materials and methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in December 2011. Information relevant to COI and requirements for disclosures that was publicly available on journal websites was collected.Results While financial COI disclosures were required by 358 (89Á7%) and nonfinancial by 280 (70Á2%) journals, 155 (38Á8%) required editors' disclosures. Journals in the first decile of the JCR classification scored significantly higher than those in the second decile for all disclosure policies. Ninety (22Á6%) journals were published by Elsevier and 59 (14Á8%) by Wiley-Blackwell, with Elsevier scoring significantly better in financial disclosure policies (P = 0Á022). Clinical journals scored significantly higher than basic journals for all disclosure policies. No differences were observed between open-access (n = 25) and nonopen-access (n = 374) journals for any type of disclosure. Somewhat incoherently, authors' disclosure statements were included in some published manuscript in 57Á1% of journals without any COI disclosure policies.Conclusions Authors' financial COI disclosures were required by about 90% of high-impact clinical and basic journals publishing original research. Unlike recent studies showing a significantly lower prevalence of nonfinancial compared with financial disclosures, the former were required by about 70% of journals, suggesting that editors are increasingly concerned about nonfinancial competing interests. Only 40% of journals required disclosure of editors' COI, in conflict with the recommendations of the most influential editors' associations.

No abstract

The objective of this study was to describe the clinical and immunological characteristics of maternal autoimmune-mediated fetal congenital heart block (CHB) in a cohort of pregnant women from an autoimmune disease pregnancy clinic. This is a retrospective observational study of all women presenting with CHB in our autoimmune disease pregnancy clinic from January 1997 to December 2014. In addition, perinatal outcome is also described. Fourteen patients accounting for 18 fetuses with CHB were identified. The median age was 32.5 years (range, 22-40). Seven (50 %) patients had Sjögren's syndrome, and the remaining seven were asymptomatic carriers of autoantibodies. All patients had anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and 11/13 (85 %) had anti-La/SSB antibodies. The median gestational age at the time of CHB was 22 weeks (range 18-28). Complete third degree CHB was detected in 12 (67 %). Seven cases of CHB were treated with dexamethasone, two with ritodrine, and one with the association of dexamethasone, ritodrine, and terbutaline. In 9 (50 %) cases that presented with, or developed, very poor prognosis factors, such as a ventricular rate below 50-55 bpm and/or the presence of fetal hydrops, parents opted for the termination of pregnancy, after dedicated counseling. Finally, there were nine newborns (seven males [78 %]) with median age at delivery of 37 weeks (range, 32-39). A definitive epicardial pacemaker was placed in six newborns, four of them within 2 weeks of life. CHB is a severe complication related to maternal anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies. Our results confirm previous data showing that therapy is ineffective, and most of the surviving patients will require neonatal pacemaker.