A recent study has found that more than half of peer reviewers for four leading medical journals received payments from drug and medical device manufacturers, totaling over $1 billion between 2020 and 2022.
The study, which analysed data from the Open Payments database, revealed that 58.9 per cent of nearly 2,000 US-based physician peer reviewers for journals such as JAMA, The New England Journal of Medicine, The BMJ, and The Lancet, accepted industry payments. These payments included both general payments, such as consulting fees and “honoraria”, and research-related payments.
The findings have raised concerns about the influence of financial conflicts of interest on the objectivity of the peer review process.
Critics, such as Adriane Fugh-Berman from Georgetown University told Medpage Today that these conflicts of interest undermine the integrity of medical publishing, as they may skew what gets published in favour of industry-backed research.
While some researchers, like study co-author Christopher Wallis, argue that financial relationships are not inherently negative, others emphasise that the widespread nature of these conflicts should not be ‘normalised’. Despite existing disclosure policies for authors and editors, many journals lack similar transparency for peer reviewers, further complicating efforts to ensure impartiality in medical research.
The study also highlighted disparities in payments between male and female reviewers, with men receiving significantly higher compensation on average.
Although the research focused on four high-impact journals and US-based physicians, the findings suggest that financial ties between peer reviewers and industry could be a common issue in medical publishing worldwide.
The researchers noted that this study may underestimate the full scope of payments, as it excluded non-US reviewers and payments from insurance or tech companies.
This article was originally published by the Daily Telegraph New Zealand.
