Editorial: Conflicts of Interest in Publication about Families and Family Therapy

• Published date: 01 June 2015
• Author: Jay L. Lebow
• Date: 01 June 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12154

JUNE 2015 VOLUME 54 NUMBER 2

Editorial: Conflicts of Interest in Publication about

Families and Family Therapy

JAY L. LEBOW*

Fam Proc 54:199–204, 2015

Questions about conflicts of interest in the areas covered by this journal cause us to

enter a complex territory. Clinical treatments and scientific investigations about the

family are almost never the focus of giant government grants, nor do they present oppor-

tunities for enormous profits for pharmaceutical companies, which utilize research to pro-

vide support for their products. As editor of this journal and a frequent consumer of

research concerning families and family therapy, I am eternally grateful for the work of

dedicated investigators, who mostly with few incentives have created the enormous base

of evidence that informs the clinical practice of family therapy and family related pro-

grams, as well as social policy about families today (Lebow, 1997, 2006, 2014a, 2014b).

All told, the notoriety generated from this work is small and financial profit mostly non-

existent.

And yet, family journals, much as others in the sciences and social sciences, need very

much to keep in focus potential conflicts of interest. Those who develop instruments, treat-

ments, or intervention programs often do have a vested interest in the success of their pro-

grams (Imber-Black, 2014). Furthermore, a very few of these programs, treatments, and

instruments generate considerable revenues. In addition, even those whose research lies

in some area of social policy in which there is no product at all may have some underlying

stake other than a scientific one in the outcome of their investigation.

One of Family Process’s editorial advisors, James Coyne, has become a major voice in

the broader world of science about conflicts of interest in journal publication. Jim has been

especially critical of work in support of the family enrichment program, Triple-P, an inter-

vention about which Family Process has published two articles (Roux, Sofronoff, & Sand-

ers, 2013; Wiggins, Sofronoff, & Sanders, 2009). He suggests that research, such as that

about Triple-P, which is carried out away from the oversight of large entities, such as

NIMH or NIH, are especially vulnerable to potential bias. Coyne stresses that authors’

*Editor, Family Process, and Family Institute at Northwestern.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jay Lebow, Ph.D., Family Institute at

Northwestern, 618 Library Place, Evanston, IL 60201. E-mail: j-lebow@northwestern.edu.

199

Family Process, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2015 ©2015 Family Process Institute

doi: 10.1111/famp.12154