BACKGROUND: Lack of transparency around manufacturing costs, who bears the bulk of research and development costs and how total costs relate to the pricing of products, continue to fuel debates. This paper considers the case of olaparib (Lynparza®), recently indicated for use among BRCA-mutant breast cancer patients, and estimates the extent of public and philanthropic R&D funding.
METHODS: We know from previous work that attempting to ascertain the amount of public and philanthropic funding using purely bibliographic sources (i.e., authors\' declarations of funding sources and amounts traced through funders) is limited. Since we knew that a publically funded research unit was pivotal in developing olaparib, we decided to supplement bibliographic data with a Freedom of Information request for administrative records on research funding data from this research centre.
METHODS: In terms of stages of product development, work conducted in the pre-clinical research stage was the most likely to report non-industry funding (> 90% of pre-clinical projects received public or philanthropic funding). Clinical trials were least likely to be funded through non-industry sources-although even here, contrary to the popular assertion that this is wholly industry-financed, we found public or philanthropic funding declared by 23% of clinical trials. Using information reported in the publications, we identified approximately £128 million of public and philanthropic funding that may have contributed to the development of olaparib. However, this amount was less than one-third of the total amount received by one research institute playing a pivotal role in product discovery. The Institute of Cancer Research reported receiving 38 funding awards to support olaparib work for BRCA-mutant breast cancer totalling over £400 million.
CONCLUSIONS: Government or charitable funding of pharmaceutical product development is difficult to trace using publicly available sources, due to incomplete information provided by authors and/or a lack of consistency in funding information made available by funders. This study has shown that a Freedom of Information request, in countries where such requests are supported, can provide information to help build the picture of financial support. In the example of olaparib, the funding amounts directly reported considerably exceeded amounts that could be ascertained using publically available bibliographic sources.

Background: Registered Reports (RRs) could be a way to increase the quality of scientific research and literature, such as by reducing publication bias and increasing the rigour of study designs. These potential benefits have led to Registered Report funding partnerships (RRFPs or partnerships for short) between research funders and academic journals who collaborate to encourage researchers to publish RRs. In this study we investigated the research question: \"What are the experiences of the stakeholders (authors, reviewers, journal editors, funders) in the various partnership models?\". Our companion paper addresses a related, but separate, research question. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of 32 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (funders, editors, authors, reviewers, matchmakers) from six partnerships. Results: Interviewees had highly variable perceptions and experiences, reflecting the complex and nuanced impacts of partnerships. We identified 6 themes: \"Importance of communication with authors and reviewers\", \"Influence on study design\", \"Appropriateness of partners\", \"Potential to reduce publication bias\", \"Impact on reviewer workload\", and \"Insufficient evidence\". Conclusions: This was the first investigation into these novel initiatives. We hope that our findings can benefit and shape current and future partnerships.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly \"Final Research Reports\" of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI\'s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin.
METHODS: Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers\' comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles.
RESULTS: We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%).
CONCLUSIONS: Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder\'s peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.

暂无摘要。

Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers\' final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements.