Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:54:51.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Scientific publishing, transparency and the role of the medical library

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2007

Agneta Yngve*
Affiliation:
Editor-in-Chief
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2007

All scientific journals are nowadays available in electronic format. Some journals are available only in electronic format. MEDLINE now lists more than 5000 biomedical journals from more than 80 countries worldwide. SciFinder Scholar includes all MEDLINE listings, and adds another 1000 chemical journals. SciFinder Scholar also has a number of features that are incredibly valuable and advanced – for example finding the two- or even three-dimensional structure of a chemical compound is easily done in this database. Google Scholar and Scope are other examples to be added to the list of databases available for search from home or through medical libraries. Lindberg and HumphreysReference Lindberg and Humphreys1 envisage the future medical library as a commodity responding to the ever-increasing need for more high-quality electronic information, delivered as a package, including different relevant consensus statements and/or protocols for easy-and-quick access. The demands in the future will possibly also include instructional videos, high-resolution graphics, and freedom from any commercial offers. Mastering all these electronic resources is, and will increasingly be, of immense importance in the advancement of research frontiers. The medical librarians of today obviously see their role as previously, as suppliers of information as well as of space for studies and meetings. According to the Code of Ethics of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries2, they also see themselves as having an educational role and being a resource centre for information technology and web development. Librarians' role in providing an ethical framework for publications and as beacons of transparency when it comes to authorship and sponsorship has been progressively important over the years.

MEDLINE barring non-transparent supplements

Very soon, MEDLINE introduces a barring of journal supplements which do not include disclosure statements regarding commercial funding or even funding from non-profit organisations35. This strengthened disclosure policy for supplements was partly due to an intervention by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)6, questioning a recent supplement in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition regarding salt intakeReference Logan7, edited by an advisor to the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) and seen by CSPI as downplaying the health risks of salt intake. ILSI8 is known within the United Nations system as a BINGO - business interest NGO. It has charitable status and many independent scientific advisors, but its governing body and most if not all of its core funding is from industry, including many leading manufacturers whose products are formulated with large amounts of salt. In the larger scope of the medical library, this type of sponsored supplements normally invoives pharmaceutical companies. The example above and many others9, however, points at the need for transparency when it comes to food-related publications as well. Out of the 2005 journal issues, around 4% (growing number) were funded by drug companies but did not disclose that the companies had paid some authors to write articles about their productsReference Kaiser4. We have obviously seen the need for transparency when it comes to food-related publications as well, as in the example above and in our recent editorialReference Margetts9. The editorial in Lancet 5 even suggests more rigorous indexing rules for MEDLINE – and asks ‘Why tarnish MEDLINE's reputation by publishing these types of supplements at all?’ And considering those users with restricted skills whose sole access is to MEDLINE abstracts, this is certainly a question we should ask ourselves. Maybe disclosure statements should be included in all abstracts in order to provide the optimal amount of information and transparency? This journal's policy is to have all papers peer-reviewed, in regular issues as well as supplements. Furthermore, in the new author guidelines, we are discussing inclusion of disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest in all abstracts, in order to further enlighten information seekers with access solely to abstracts. Maybe the National Library of Medicine3 will beat us to it.

References

1Lindberg, DA, Humphreys, BL. 2015 – the future of medical libraries. New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 352(11): 1067–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2European Association for Health Information and Libraries. Code of ethics for EAHIL members [online]. Available at http://www.eahil.net/code_ethics.htm. Accessed 2 January 2007.Google Scholar
3US National Library of Medicine. Fact Sheet: Response to Inquiries about Journal Selection for Indexing> [online]. Available at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/j_sel_faq.html. Accessed 4 January 2007.+[online].+Available+at+http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/j_sel_faq.html.+Accessed+4+January+2007.>Google Scholar
4Kaiser, J. Scientific publishing. MEDLINE supplements must list corporate ties. Science 2006; 314(5798): 405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Anon. Read MEDLINE abstracts with a pinch of salt. Lancet 2006; 368(9545): 1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Logan, AG. Dietary sodium intake and its relation to human health: a summary of the evidence. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 2006; 25(3 Suppl.): 5 p preceding 231S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8International Life Sciences Institute. Homepage: www.ilsi.org.Google Scholar
9Margetts, B. Stopping the rot in nutrition science [Editorial]. Public Health Nutrition 2006; 9(2): 169–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed