Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • EMBO reports (Home)
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Life Science Alliance
Login

   

Search

Advanced Search

Journal

  • Home
  • Latest Online
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections
  • Review Series & Focuses

Authors & Referees

  • Submit
  • Author Guidelines
  • Aims & Scope
  • Editors & Board
  • Transparent Process
  • Bibliometrics
  • Referee Guidelines
  • Open Access

Info

  • E-Mail Editorial Office
  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions & Access
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Advertise & Sponsor
  • Media Partners
  • News & Press
  • Recommend to Librarian
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • EMBO reports: 19 (6)

Open Access

Opinion

Transparency on scientific instruments

View ORCID ProfileCarsten Bergenholtz, View ORCID ProfileSamuel C MacAulay, Christos Kolympiris, View ORCID ProfileInge Seim
DOI 10.15252/embr.201845853 | Published online 22.05.2018
EMBO reports (2018) 19, e45853
Carsten Bergenholtz
Department of Management, School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samuel C MacAulay
UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christos Kolympiris
School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Inge Seim
School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Author Affiliations

  1. Carsten Bergenholtz (cabe{at}mgmt.au.dk)1,
  2. Samuel C MacAulay2,
  3. Christos Kolympiris3 and
  4. Inge Seim4
  1. 1Department of Management, School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  2. 2UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  3. 3School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK
  4. 4School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
View Abstract
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Transparent Process
Loading

EMBO Reports (2018) 19: e45853OpenUrlFREE Full Text

Scientific instruments are at the heart of the scientific process, from 17th‐century telescopes and microscopes, to modern particle colliders and DNA sequencing machines. Nowadays, most scientific instruments in biomedical research come from commercial suppliers [1], [2], and yet, compared to the biopharmaceutical and medical devices industries, little is known about the interactions between scientific instrument makers and academic researchers. Our research suggests that this knowledge gap is a cause for concern.

It is the norm—and usually a requirement—that scientists mention instruments and their suppliers in the materials and methods sections of research articles, since their colleagues rely on this information to replicate or adapt their experiments. However, as the production and distribution of instruments have become increasingly commercialized [3], there are signs that this information is no longer sufficient. For example, research conducted by one of us (C.B.) revealed that some scientific instrument makers preferred not to appear as co‐authors on manuscripts—even when their employees contributed significantly to it [1]. It was believed that a manuscript would appear more credible if the company's employees did not appear as co‐authors, thus enhancing the marketing value of their instrument.

To complement this study, we conducted two surveys of academic researchers in the USA and EU to gauge how they judge information sources for scientific instruments [preprint: [4]]. The responses from almost 1,000 academic researchers revealed a marked distrust in manuscripts co‐authored by commercial makers of scientific instruments. The first survey inquired whether academic researchers consider information on instruments important, while the second survey focused on the perceived reliability of different information sources. Combined, they provide insight into how credible academic researchers find information on scientific instruments in peer‐reviewed manuscripts. As Fig 1 shows, academics discount both the importance and the reliability of information on instruments in peer‐reviewed manuscripts co‐authored by scientific instrument firm employees—even when the firm's instrument is not mentioned in the manuscript. When directly comparing the reliability of information on instruments in manuscripts authored by someone from the mentioned instrument firm or not, the difference was statistically significant and substantial. The same perceptions were evident in all scientific fields surveyed [preprint: [4]].

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1. The reliability and importance of information sources on scientific instruments

Illustration of how important and reliable respondents, indicated in percent on the y‐axis, consider information on scientific instruments to be in peer‐reviewed publications in general and various subcategories (x‐axis).

We argue that these perceptions create an, as yet underappreciated, incentive for non‐disclosure and complementary tactics by scientific instrument makers. This pattern of incentives mirrors those that have generated controversial practices, such as ghostwriting and hidden sponsorship [5]. The revelations of these practices in the biopharmaceutical industry likely fueled a Zeitgeist of inherent distrust in firm co‐authorship by academic researchers and scientific instrument firms alike.

From a commercial perspective, it is not surprising that some companies circumvent the perceived reduced credibility by not allowing employees to be listed as co‐authors, irrespective of whether they contributed significantly to the published work [1]. It boosts the credibility of the manuscript and, presumably, also the commercial instruments employed to generate the research data. Revelations from the biopharmaceutical and medical devices industries have demonstrated that such concerns are valid. For example, a range of studies showed how commercial sponsorship of academic research on drugs shaped the likelihood of reporting results [6] and influenced the perception of the research [7].

Critically, non‐disclosure not only leaves readers unable to judge potential conflicts of interests, but it also makes replication more difficult. More transparency on if and how companies were involved in the experiments could mitigate these risks, as could more detailed information in materials and methods sections, such as instrument settings and downstream data analysis.

In order to assess how much information authors are asked to provide about instruments, we carried out an informal analysis of the guidelines of the 20 most cited journals, as measured by the Google Scholar h5‐index in the categories “Health & Medical Sciences”, “Life Sciences & Earth Sciences”, and “Chemical & Material Sciences”. Almost none of the guidelines require the sort of detailed information about instrument settings and procedures required to allow others to replicate the experiment. Moreover, with one notable exception, none of these journals explicitly address the issue of contributions by instrument makers [preprint: [4]]—be they financial or technical. Only the guidelines by the American Medical Association (AMA) require disclosing financial contribution, specifying that if an instrument was provided free of charge (a 100% discount), it should be made explicit [preprint: [4]].

To illustrate the disclosure dilemma facing scientists, it may be useful to imagine a situation in which an academic researcher received a 20% discount on an instrument and considerable assistance from the company with generating and analyzing data from said instrument. The academic publishes the results in a peer‐reviewed journal, and the manuscript is cited multiple times. A strict interpretation of journal guidelines would not require the scientist to disclose either the financial benefit or the involvement of the company in data generation and interpretation. Moreover, since being affiliated with a commercial company seems to influence how fellow academic researchers value the manuscript, the academic and the instrument maker have a shared incentive against disclosing pertinent facts.

Public debate and guidelines or policies by academic journals have contributed significantly to tackling non‐disclosure issues in pharmaceutical research [3]. More recently, public debate on the reproducibility of the results from biomedical research led to further changes in both norms and journal guidelines [8], [9]. We argue that there should be equal attention to commercial instruments that are central to scientific research. As the scientific instrument industry is increasingly dominated by large corporations and as expensive instruments have become commonplace in academic laboratories [10], the debate on reproducibility of and transparency in research should address the issue of how and when researchers should disclose the involvement of instrument firms in research. Each day that goes by without change further undermines the transparency that is required for reproducibility and scientific progress.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Thiess Fellowship (to S.M.) and a QUT Vice‐Chancellor's Senior Research Fellowship (to I.S.).

Funding

Cancer Council Queenslandhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001168 1098565
Foundation for Prader‐Willi Research (FPWR)http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100002889
Vice Chancellery, Queensland University of Technology
Thiess Fellowship

References

  1. ↵
    Bergenholtz C (2014) Eur Man Rev 11: 159–171
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    Stephan P (2012) How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  3. ↵
    Ruff K (2015) Environ Health 14: 45
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    Bergenholtz C, MacAulay S, Kolympiris C et al (2018) bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/03/253799 [PREPRINT]
  5. ↵
    Goldacre B (2012) Bad pharma. London, UK: Fourth Estate
  6. ↵
    Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B et al (2003) BMJ 326: 1167–1170
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Kesselheim AS, Robertson CT, Myers JA et al (2012) N Engl J Med 367: 1119–1127
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    Pulverer B (2014) EMBO J 33: 2597
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Berg J (2018) Science 359: 9
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Thayer AM (2017) Chem Eng News 95: 18–23
    OpenUrl

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs 4.0 License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

  • © 2018 The Authors. Published under the terms of the CC BY NC ND 4.0 license
View Abstract
Previous Article in this IssueNext Article in this Issue
Back to top

  • PDF
  • Share
  • Export
  • Print
Loading

PDF

In this Issue
Volume 19, Issue 6
01 June 2018
EMBO reports: 19 (6)
About the cover
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted

Article

  • Article
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Transparent Process

Related Content

More Opinion

  • A case for evolutionary hermeneutics
    Ladislav Kováč
    EMBO reports 20: e47620
  • Closed loop peer review
    Michael Hill
    EMBO reports 20: e47437
  • A Bosman ruling for science
    Brooke Morriswood, Oliver Hoeller
    EMBO reports 19: e47071
More Opinion

Related Articles

Cited By...

Request Permissions

Subject Areas

  • S&S: Ethics
  • S&S: Technology
  • S&S: Media & Publishing

Journal

  • Latest Online
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Bibliometrics
  • E-Mail Editorial Office
  • Privacy Policy

Authors & References

  • Aims & Scope
  • Editors & Board
  • Transparent Process
  • Author Guidelines
  • Referee Guidelines
  • Open Access
  • Submit

Info

  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions & Access
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Advertise & Sponsor
  • News & Press
  • Recommend to Librarian
  • Customer Service

EMBO

  • Funding & Awards
  • Events
  • Science Policy
  • Members
  • About EMBO

Online ISSN  1469-3178

Copyright© 2019 EMBO

This website is best viewed using the latest versions of all modern web browsers. Older browsers may not display correctly.