Article

Conflict(s) of Interest in Peer Review: Its Origins and Possible Solutions

Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada, .
Science and Engineering Ethics (Impact Factor: 1.52). 01/2013; 20(1). DOI: 10.1007/s11948-012-9426-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Scientific communication takes place at two registers: first, interactions with colleagues in close proximity-members of a network, school of thought or circle; second, depersonalised transactions among a potentially unlimited number of scholars can be involved (e.g., author and readers). The interference between the two registers in the process of peer review produces a drift toward conflict of interest. Three particular cases of peer review are differentiated: journal submissions, grant applications and applications for tenure. The current conflict of interest policies do not cover all these areas. Furthermore, they have a number of flaws, which involves an excessive reliance on scholars' personal integrity. Conflicts of interest could be managed more efficiently if several elements and rules of the judicial process were accepted in science. The analysis relies on both primary and secondary data with a particular focus on Canada.

1 Follower
 · 
82 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the presumed frequency of conflicts of interest in scientific peer review, there is a paucity of data in the literature reporting on the frequency and type of conflicts that occur, particularly with regard to the peer review of basic science applications. To address this gap, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) conducted a retrospective analysis of conflict of interest data from the peer review of 282 biomedical research applications via several onsite review panels. The overall conflicted-ness of these panels was significantly lower than that reported for regulatory review. In addition, the majority of identified conflicts were institutional or collaborative in nature. No direct financial conflicts were identified, although this is likely due to the relatively basic science nature of the research. It was also found that 65 % of identified conflicts were manually detected by AIBS staff searching reviewer CVs and application documents, with the remaining 35 % resulting from self-reporting. The lack of self-reporting may be in part attributed to a lack of perceived risk of the conflict. This result indicates that many potential conflicts go unreported in peer review, underscoring the importance of improving detection methods and standardizing the reporting of reviewer and applicant conflict of interest information.
    Science and Engineering Ethics 02/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11948-015-9631-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings (scientific journals). Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.
    Science and Engineering Ethics 04/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A case of a particularly severe misbehavior in a review process is described. Two reviewers simply copied and pasted their critical comments from their previous reviews without reading the reviewed manuscript. The editor readily accepted the reviewers' opinion and rejected the manuscript. These facts give rise to some general questions about possible factors affecting the ethical behavior of reviewers and editors, as well as possible countermeasures to prevent ethical violations.
    Science and Engineering Ethics 08/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11948-014-9583-3