Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:44:42.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Declare, declare!

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Morris Zwi*
Affiliation:
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010

To me, the authors' response Reference Cook, Dein, Powell and Eagger1 to Peter Bruggen's letter Reference Bruggen2 reflects a lack of understanding of the issue of bias in regard to declarations of interest. Surely, the most important reason for declarations of interest is to allow editors and readers to judge whether bias might have crept into a publication. Although the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, through financial relationships with clinicians or academics, is undoubtedly a source of bias, it is not the only source of bias that should be declared. Why should a cognitive-behavioural therapy-trained researcher or anyone with a particular leaning not declare that interest? It is not complicated to state succinctly that there is a potential bias. It is simple to do and aids transparency. Let the readers decide! The authors' distinction between ‘conflicts of interest’ and ‘perspectives of interest’ is splitting hairs and appears pedantic and defensive. Declare, declare!

References

1 Cook, CHC, Dein, S, Powell, A, Eagger, S. Declarations of interest. Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Bruggen, P. Declarations of interest. Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 259.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.