Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Response to Soares et al.

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 74, pages 351–352 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

To the editor:

Soares et al. [1] have described a new policy at Eur J Clin Nutr for managing conflicts of interest in nutrition research articles. The policy requires that industry funded studies be placed into categories: 1: Studies financed by industry (in part or total) but with a clear declaration that the industry was not involved in the study hypothesis/design, execution, analysis, or interpretation; 2: Studies sponsored by industry (in part or total), with a clear declaration that industry was involved in the study/design, execution, analysis, or interpretation; and 3: Studies funded and conducted by industry with no external partners. Category 2 and 3 studies, but not Category 1, will be published under the subject category “Industry Research.” We suggest that this policy be reversed. We are not arguing against the publication of industry funded research in Eur J Clin Nutr, but rather that all industry sponsored research be published under the subject category “industry research.”

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Soares MJ, Muller MJ, Boeing H, Maffeis C, Misra A, Muscogiuri G, et al. Conflict of interest in nutrition research: an editorial perspective. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73:1213–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rasmussen K, Bero L, Redberg R, Gotzsche PC, Lundh A. Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross sectional study of publications and survey of lead academic authors. BMJ 2018;363:k3654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fabbri A, Lai A, Grundy Q, Bero LA. The influence of industry sponsorship on the research agenda: a scoping review. Am J Public Health. 2018;108:e9–e16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bero LA. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep. 2005;120:200–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, Schuler YB, Kolsch H, Kaiser T. Reporting bias in medical research—a narrative review. Trials 2010;11:37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hong MK, Bero LA. How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. BMJ 2002;325:1413–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Krimsky S, Gillam C. Roundup litigation discovery documents: implications for public health and journal ethics. J Public Health Policy. 2018;39:318–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McHenry LB, Jureidini JN. Industry-sponsored ghostwriting in clinical trial reporting: a case study. Acc Res 2008;15:152–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stuckler D, Ruskin G, McKee M. Complexity and conflicts of interest statements: a case-study of emails exchanged between Coca-Cola and the principal investigators of the International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE). J Public Health Policy. 2018;39:49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bero LA, Grundy Q. Why having a (nonfinancial) interest is not a conflict of interest. PLoS Biol 2016;14:e2001221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no funding for this letter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charles Perkins Centre and Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Lisa Bero

  2. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget, Denmark

    Asbjørn Hróbjartsson

  3. Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Quinn Grundy

Authors
  1. Lisa Bero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quinn Grundy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Bero.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bero, L., Hróbjartsson, A. & Grundy, Q. Response to Soares et al.. Eur J Clin Nutr 74, 351–352 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0545-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0545-3

Search

Advanced search

Quick links