Analysis of the relationship between the inclusion of industry authors and the impact and perception of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sanchaita Sriwal Sonar, Emma Raderschadt, Shivangi Gupta, Stefan Courtney, Rachana Patel
{"title":"Analysis of the relationship between the inclusion of industry authors and the impact and perception of peer-reviewed scientific publications.","authors":"Sanchaita Sriwal Sonar, Emma Raderschadt, Shivangi Gupta, Stefan Courtney, Rachana Patel","doi":"10.1080/03007995.2025.2527673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess whether pharmaceutical industry authorship affects the impact and perceived credibility of clinical publications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A PubMed search for clinical trials in four therapy areas (oncology, cardiometabolism, central nervous system and inflammation), published in peer-reviewed journals between 2018 and 2023, was performed. Industry authors were identified. Publication impact (total citations and X interactions) was analyzed for each paper. A multinational survey of 180 healthcare professionals assessed whether industry authorship affects perception of publications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A weak but significant negative correlation was demonstrated between the percentage of industry authors and academic citations and X interactions (r = -0.10 and r = -0.13, respectively; both <i>p</i> < 0.0001), regardless of journal impact factor or total author number. Papers with ≥50% or lead/last authors from industry had significantly lower citations and X interactions. In the survey, 57% of respondents thought author affiliation and 24% thought industry affiliation were important factors affecting publication credibility. Over half of respondents thought publication credibility decreased due to high numbers (56%) or a majority (61%) of industry authors, and an industry author as lead/last author (57%). 68% associated high numbers of industry authors with a potential for bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These analyses show that industry authorship influences the credibility and impact of scientific publications. It is essential to raise awareness of the pharmaceutical industry's commitment to good publication practices, which ensures authorship is based on merit and genuine contributions. Future research should focus on understanding and addressing how authorship dynamics shape the perception and trustworthiness of scientific work, ensuring a balance that fosters both innovation and public confidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":10814,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2527673","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether pharmaceutical industry authorship affects the impact and perceived credibility of clinical publications.

Methods: A PubMed search for clinical trials in four therapy areas (oncology, cardiometabolism, central nervous system and inflammation), published in peer-reviewed journals between 2018 and 2023, was performed. Industry authors were identified. Publication impact (total citations and X interactions) was analyzed for each paper. A multinational survey of 180 healthcare professionals assessed whether industry authorship affects perception of publications.

Results: A weak but significant negative correlation was demonstrated between the percentage of industry authors and academic citations and X interactions (r = -0.10 and r = -0.13, respectively; both p < 0.0001), regardless of journal impact factor or total author number. Papers with ≥50% or lead/last authors from industry had significantly lower citations and X interactions. In the survey, 57% of respondents thought author affiliation and 24% thought industry affiliation were important factors affecting publication credibility. Over half of respondents thought publication credibility decreased due to high numbers (56%) or a majority (61%) of industry authors, and an industry author as lead/last author (57%). 68% associated high numbers of industry authors with a potential for bias.

Conclusion: These analyses show that industry authorship influences the credibility and impact of scientific publications. It is essential to raise awareness of the pharmaceutical industry's commitment to good publication practices, which ensures authorship is based on merit and genuine contributions. Future research should focus on understanding and addressing how authorship dynamics shape the perception and trustworthiness of scientific work, ensuring a balance that fosters both innovation and public confidence.

分析行业作者的加入与同行评议科学出版物的影响和认知之间的关系。
目的:评估制药行业作者身份是否会影响临床出版物的影响力和感知可信度。方法:通过PubMed检索2018年至2023年在同行评审期刊上发表的四个治疗领域(肿瘤学、心脏代谢、中枢神经系统和炎症)的临床试验。确定了行业作者。对每篇论文的发表影响(总引用和X次互动)进行了分析。一项针对180名医疗保健专业人员的跨国调查评估了行业作者身份是否会影响对出版物的看法。结果:行业作者百分比、学术引用数与X交互作用呈显著负相关(r = -0.10、r = -0.13);结论:这些分析表明,行业作者影响科学出版物的可信度和影响力。提高对制药业对良好出版规范的承诺的认识是至关重要的,这确保作者身份是基于优点和真正的贡献。未来的研究应该专注于理解和解决作者身份动态如何塑造科学工作的感知和可信度,确保促进创新和公众信心的平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Medical Research and Opinion
Current Medical Research and Opinion 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
247
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Current Medical Research and Opinion is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal for the rapid publication of original research on new and existing drugs and therapies, Phase II-IV studies, and post-marketing investigations. Equivalence, safety and efficacy/effectiveness studies are especially encouraged. Preclinical, Phase I, pharmacoeconomic, outcomes and quality of life studies may also be considered if there is clear clinical relevance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信