From the Journals

Industry Payments to Peer Reviewers Scrutinized at Four Major Medical Journals


 

TOPLINE:

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
  • General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
  • Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
  • Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
  • For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted.

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recommended Reading

Lawsuit Targets Publishers: Is Peer Review Flawed?
MDedge Cardiology
Beyond Scope Creep: Why Physicians and PAs Should Come Together for Patients
MDedge Cardiology
NY Nurse Practitioners Sue State Over Pay Equity, Alleged Gender Inequality
MDedge Cardiology
A Hard Look at Toxic Workplace Culture in Medicine
MDedge Cardiology
70% of Doctors Would Discharge Noncompliant Patients, Medscape Survey Finds
MDedge Cardiology
How Doctors Use Music to Learn Faster and Perform Better
MDedge Cardiology
Is It Possible To Treat Patients You Dislike?
MDedge Cardiology
Hospital Diagnostic Errors May Affect 7% of Patients
MDedge Cardiology
A Doctor Gets the Save When a Little League Umpire Collapses
MDedge Cardiology
The Game We Play Every Day
MDedge Cardiology