https://jkms.org Many factors, including professional and personal relationships and activities, can influence the design, conduct, and reporting of the clinical science that informs health care decision. The potential for conflict of interest exists when these relationships and activities may bias judgement.1 Many stakeholders—editors, peer reviewers, clinicians, educators, policymakers, patients, and the public—rely on the disclosure of authors' relationships and activities to inform their assessments. Trust in the transparency, consistency, and completeness of these disclosures is essential.

Disclosure of an author's pertinent relationships may influence how readers assess a published work. An international group of medical journal editors proposes changes to how authors' disclosure in...

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors announces requirements that a data sharing plan be prospectively registered, and a data sharing statement be included in submitted manuscripts, for clinical trials to be published in ICMJE journals.

国际医学期刊编辑委员会(ICMJE)认为,由于临床试验参与者处于研究风险之中,我们有伦理义务来负责任地共享干预性临床试验产生的原始数据.2016年1月,ICMJE发表了一项关于临床试验数据共享的提案,旨在帮助创造共享去标识个体患者数据的常态化环境.迄今,应我们的反馈要求,ICMJE收到了很多来自个人和团体的意见1.有些反馈赞同数据共享的提案,而另一些则对未能更快地致力于数据共享表示失望.许多反馈对数据共享提案的可行性、必要的资源、对于临床试验参与者的真实或感知的风险,以及保护患者和研究人员利益的必要性提出了切实的顾虑.

A requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Objective: This study analyzed data from a study on the value of libraries to understand the specific role that the MEDLINE database plays in relation to other information resources that are available to health care providers and its role in positively impacting patient care. Methods: A previous study on the use of health information resources for patient care obtained 16,122 responses from health care providers in 56 hospitals about how providers make decisions affecting patient care and the role of information resources in that process. Respondents indicated resources used in answering a specific clinical question from a list of 19 possible resources, including MEDLINE. Study data were examined using descriptive statistics and regression analysis to determine the number of information resources used and how they were used in combination with one another. Results: Health care professionals used 3.5 resources, on average, to aid in patient care. The 2 most frequently used resources were journals (print and online) and the MEDLINE database. Using a higher number of information resources was significantly associated with a higher probability of making changes to patient care and avoiding adverse events. MEDLINE was the most likely to be among consulted resources compared to any other information resource other than journals. Conclusions: MEDLINE is a critical clinical care tool that health care professionals use to avoid adverse events, make changes to patient care, and answer clinical questions.

El Comite Internacional de Editores de Revistas Me-dicas (ICMJE, por sus siglas en ingles) considera que es una obligacion etica compartir, de forma respon- sable, los datos generados por los ensayos clinicos, porque los participantes se han puesto en riesgo para ello.

Are we satisfied with the current state of global knowledge preservation? What are the current preservation methods? Who are the actors? Is this system satisfactory? What role do institutional repositories play in this process? What does the future hold for these repositories (taking into account linking efforts, publishing company concerns about revenue declines, widespread dark archiving practices, and so on)? Would new mandates help (or do we simply need to tighten existing mandates so they actually compel authors to do certain things)? And how do versions of record figure into all of this—that is, how do archiving policies (with regard to differences between pre-journal and post-journal versions) affect knowledge accuracy and transfer?

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) believes that there is an ethical obligation to responsibly share data generated by interventional clinical trials because participants have put themselves at risk. In a growing consensus, many funders around the world—foundations, government agencies, and industry—now mandate data sharing. Here we outline ICMJE’s proposed requirements to help meet this obligation. We encourage feedback on the proposed requirements. Anyone can provide feedback at www.icmje.org by 18 April 2016. The ICMJE defines a clinical trial as any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome. Further details may be found in the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals at www.icmje.org As a condition of consideration for publication of a clinical trial report in our member journals, the ICMJE proposes to require authors to share with others the deidentified individual-patient data (IPD) underlying the results presented in the article (including tables, figures, and appendices or supplementary material) no later than 6 months after publication. The data underlying the results are defined as the IPD required to reproduce the article’s findings, including necessary metadata. This requirement will go into effect for clinical trials that begin to enroll participants beginning 1 year after the ICMJE adopts its data-sharing requirements.* Enabling responsible data sharing is a major endeavor that will affect the fabric of how clinical trials are planned and conducted and how their data are used. By changing the requirements of the manuscripts we will consider for publication in our journals, editors can help foster this endeavor. As editors, our direct influence is logically, and practically, limited to those data underpinning the results and analyses we publish in our journals. The ICMJE also proposes to require that authors include a plan for data sharing as a component of clinical trial registration. This plan must include where the researchers will house the data and, if not in a public repository, the mechanism by which they will provide others access to the data, as well as other data-sharing plan elements outlined in the 2015 Institute of Medicine Report (e.g., whether data will be freely available to anyone upon request or only after application to and approval by a learned intermediary, whether a data use agreement will be required) (1). ClinicalTrials.gov has added an element to its registration platform to collect data-sharing plans. We encourage other trial registries to similarly incorporate mechanisms for the registration of data-sharing plans. Trialists who want to publish in ICMJE member journals (or nonmember journals that choose to follow these recommendations) should choose a registry that includes a data-sharing plan element as a specified registry item or allows for its entry as a free-text statement in a miscellaneous registry field. As a condition of consideration for publication in our member journals, authors will be required to include a description of the data-sharing plan in the submitted manuscript. Authors may choose to share the deidentified IPD underlying the results presented in the article under less restrictive, but not more restrictive, conditions than were indicated in the registered data-sharing plan. ICMJE already requires the prospective registration of all clinical trials prior to enrollment of the first participant. This requirement aims, in part, to prevent selective publication and selective reporting of research outcomes, and to prevent unnecessary duplication of research effort. Including a commitment to a data-sharing plan is a logical addition to trial registration that will further each of these goals. Prospective trial registration currently includes documenting the planned primary and major secondary end points to be assessed, which enables identification of incomplete reporting as well as post hoc analyses. Declaring the plan for sharing data prior to their collection will further enhance transparency in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials by exposing when data availability following trial completion differs from prior commitments. Sharing clinical trial data, including deidentified IPD, requires planning to ensure appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board approval and the informed consent of study participants. Accordingly, we will defer these requirements for 1 year to allow investigators, trial sponsors, and regulatory bodies time to plan for their implementation. Just as the confidentiality of trial participants must be protected (through the deidentification of IPD), and the needs of those reasonably requesting data met (through the provision of useable data), the reasonable rights of investigators and trial sponsors must also be protected. ICMJE proposes the following to safeguard these rights. First, ICMJE editors will not consider the deposition of data in a registry to constitute prior publication. Second, authors of secondary analyses using these shared data must attest that their use was in accordance with the terms (if any) agreed to upon their receipt. Third, they must reference the source of the data using a unique identifier of a clinical trial’s data set to provide appropriate credit to those who generated it and allow searching for the studies it has supported. Fourth, authors of secondary analyses must explain completely how theirs differ from previous analyses. In addition, those who generate and then share clinical trial data sets deserve substantial credit for their efforts. Those using data collected by others should seek collaboration with those who collected the data. However, because collaboration will not always be possible, practical, or desired, an alternative means of providing appropriate credit needs to be developed and recognized in the academic community. We welcome ideas about how to provide such credit. Data sharing is a shared responsibility. Editors of individual journals can help foster data sharing by changing the requirements of the manuscripts they will consider for publication in their journals. Funders and sponsors of clinical trials are in a position to support and ensure adherence to IPD sharing obligations. If journal editors become aware that IPD sharing obligations are not being met, they may choose to request additional information; to publish an expression of concern; to notify the sponsors, funders, or institutions; or in certain cases, to retract the publication. In the rare situation in which compliance with these requirements is impossible, editors may consider authors’ requests for exceptions. If an exception is made, the reason(s) must be explained in the publication. Sharing data will increase confidence and trust in the conclusions drawn from clinical trials. It will enable the independent confirmation of results, an essential tenet of the scientific process. It will foster the development and testing of new hypotheses. Done well, sharing clinical trial data should also make progress more efficient by making the most of what may be learned from each trial and by avoiding unwarranted repetition. It will help to fulfill our moral obligation to study participants, and we believe it will benefit patients, investigators, sponsors, and society.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) believes that there is an ethical obligation to responsibly share data generated by interventional clinical trials because participants have put themselves at risk. In a growing consensus, many funders around the world-foundations, government agencies, and industry-now mandate data sharing. Here we outline ICMJE's proposed requirements to help meet this obligation. We encourage feedback on the proposed requirements. Anyone can provide feedback at www.icmje.org by 18 April 2016. The ICMJE defines a clinical trial as any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome. Further details may be found in the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals at www.icmje.org. As a condition of consideration for publication of a clinical trial report in our member journals, the ICMJE proposes to require authors to share with others the deidentified individual-patient data (IPD) underlying the results presented in the article (including tables, figures, and appendices or supplementary material) no later than 6 months after publication. The data underlying the results are defined as the IPD required to reproduce the article's findings, including necessary metadata. This requirement will go into effect for clinical trials that begin to enroll participants beginning 1 year after the ICMJE adopts its data-sharing requirements.* Enabling responsible data sharing is a major endeavor that will affect the fabric of how clinical trials are planned and conducted and how their data are used. By changing the requirements of the manuscripts we will consider for publication in our journals, editors can help foster this endeavor. As editors, our direct influence is logically, and practically, limited to those data underpinning the results and analyses we publish in our journals. The ICMJE also proposes to require that authors include a plan for data sharing as a component of clinical trial registration. This plan must include where the researchers will house the data and, if not in a public repository, the mechanism by which they will provide others access to the data, as well as other data-sharing plan elements outlined in the 2015 Institute of Medicine Report (e.g., whether data will be freely available to anyone upon request or only after application to and approval by a learned intermediary, whether a data use agreement will be required) (1). ClinicalTrials.gov has added an element to its registration platform to collect data-sharing plans. We encourage other trial registries to similarly incorporate mechanisms for the registration of data-sharing plans. Trialists who want to publish in ICMJE member journals (or nonmember journals that choose to follow these recommendations) should choose a registry that includes a data-sharing plan element as a specified registry item or allows for its entry as a free-text statement in a miscellaneous registry field. As a condition of consideration for publication in our member journals, authors will be required to include a description of the data-sharing plan in the submitted manuscript. Authors may choose to share the deidentified IPD underlying the results presented in the article under less restrictive, but not more restrictive, conditions than were indicated in the registered data-sharing plan. ICMJE already requires the prospective registration of all clinical trials prior to enrollment of the first participant. This requirement aims, in part, to prevent selective publication and selective reporting of research outcomes, and to prevent unnecessary duplication of research effort. Including a commitment to a data-sharing plan is a logical addition to trial registration that will further each of these goals. Prospective trial registration currently includes documenting the planned primary and major secondary end points to be assessed, which enables identification of incomplete reporting as well as post hoc analyses. Declaring the plan for sharing data prior to their collection will further enhance transparency in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials by exposing when data availability following trial completion differs from prior commitments. Sharing clinical trial data, including deidentified IPD, requires planning to ensure appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board approval and the informed consent of study participants. Accordingly, we will defer these requirements for 1 year to allow investigators, trial sponsors, and regulatory bodies time to plan for their implementation. Just as the confidentiality of trial participants must be protected (through the deidentification of IPD), and the needs of those reasonably requesting data met (through the provision of useable data), the reasonable rights of investigators and trial sponsors must also be protected. ICMJE proposes the following to safeguard these rights. First, ICMJE editors will not consider the deposition of data in a registry to constitute prior publication. Second, authors of secondary analyses using these shared data must attest that their use was in accordance with the terms (if any) agreed to upon their receipt. Third, they must reference the source of the data using a unique identifier of a clinical trial's data set to provide appropriate credit to those who generated it and allow searching for the studies it has supported. Fourth, authors of secondary analyses must explain completely how theirs differ from previous analyses. In addition, those who generate and then share clinical trial data sets deserve substantial credit for their efforts. Those using data collected by others should seek collaboration with those who collected the data. However, because collaboration will not always be possible, practical, or desired, an alternative means of providing appropriate credit needs to be developed and recognized in the academic community. We welcome ideas about how to provide such credit. Data sharing is a shared responsibility. Editors of individual journals can help foster data sharing by changing the requirements of the manuscripts they will consider for publication in their journals. Funders and sponsors of clinical trials are in a position to support and ensure adherence to IPD sharing obligations. If journal editors become aware that IPD sharing obligations are not being met, they may choose to request additional information; to publish an expression of concern; to notify the sponsors, funders, or institutions; or in certain cases, to retract the publication. In the rare situation in which compliance with these requirements is impossible, editors may consider authors' requests for exceptions. If an exception is made, the reason(s) must be explained in the publication. Sharing data will increase confidence and trust in the conclusions drawn from clinical trials. It will enable the independent confirmation of results, an essential tenet of the scientific process. It will foster the development and testing of new hypotheses. Done well, sharing clinical trial data should also make progress more efficient by making the most of what may be learned from each trial and by avoiding unwarranted repetition. It will help to fulfill our moral obligation to study participants, and we believe it will benefit patients, investigators, sponsors, and society.

Repositories are a vital tool in modern information management and a key component of preser­vation and long-term availability. They are not well-suited, however, to the current chal­lenges posed by our information-rich society and the multitude of stakeholders involved in the modern scholarly publishing system. Strengthening repositories and standardizing preserva­tion processes are critically important. This challenge will require not only leading multi­ple stakeholder groups but also reforming multiple information systems, architectures, phi­losophies, practices, and more. OSI2016 Workgroup Question Are we satisfied with the current state of global knowledge preservation? What are the current­ preservation methods? Who are the actors? Is this system satisfactory? What role do institu­tional repositories play in this process? What does the future hold for these repositories (taking into account linking efforts, publishing company concerns about revenue declines, wide­spread dark archiving practices, and so on)? Would new mandates help (or do we simply need to tighten existing mandates so they actually compel authors to do certain things)? And how do versions of record figure into all of this—that is, how do archiving poli­cies (with regard to differences between pre-journal and post-journal versions) affect knowledge accurac­y­ and transfer? How can digital preservation advance open scholarship?

Objectives: Through interviews with the National Library of Medicine's MedlinePlus Go Local collaborators, an evaluation team sought to identify process characteristics that are critical for long-term sustainability of Go Local projects and to describe the impact that Go Local projects have on sponsoring institutions.Methods: Go Local project coordinators (n = 44) at 31 sponsor institutions participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences developing and maintaining Go Local sites. Interviews were summarized, checked for accuracy by the participating librarians, and analyzed using a general inductive methodology.Results: Institutional factors that support Go Local projects were identified through the interviews, as well as strategies for staffing and partnerships with external organizations. Positive outcomes for sponsoring institutions also were identified.Conclusions: The findings may influence the National Library of Medicine team's decisions about improvements to its Go Local system and the support it provides to sponsoring institutions. The findings may benefit current sponsoring institutions as well as those considering or planning a Go Local project.