Conflicts of interest
It is likely that in the course of editing a journal, you will run into a situation involving a Conflict of Interest (COI).
What is a Conflict of Interest
A COI is ‘a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the result’ (CED) or, ‘when professional judgement concerning a primary interest… may be influenced by a secondary interest’ (IJMCE guidance). They are factors through which the objectivity of one or more parties may be impacted, for a variety of reasons.
It should be emphasised that a COI is not an implicitly negative thing, nor is it an admission of any sort of wrongdoing or fraud. COIs are a tool to aid transparency, and ensuring that potential bias is highlighted so that decisions can be made with this in mind.
They can exist on the part of yourself (as editor), other editors, reviewers, authors, and other journal or publication staff.
There are many examples of a possible conflict of interest (this is not an exhaustive list):
- There is a familial relationship between author and editor, or author and reviewer.
- There is a personal relationship between author and editor, or author and reviewer.
- The editor or reviewer is based at the same institution as the author.
- If the editor or reviewer is otherwise affiliated with an author/the author.
- A reviewer or editor has a financial interest involved in the research presented (e.g. stock ownership, patents, paid consultancies).
- The author has received funding for the research that has not been declared.
- If the reviewer is in competition with an author/the author.
- A reviewer or editor holds an ideological position that you reasonably believe will impact their objectivity regarding the research presented.
If you know of any other reason why a reviewer or assigned editor could not be objective.
Often, a conflict is obvious, but sometimes it is a matter of judgement. A rule of thumb often used is whether or not the undeclared potential conflict would be embarrassing, should it become known post-publication, or whether you reasonably think that, if this were to be revealed post-publication, a reader could feel misled.
How to Determine a COI
COI statements
The primary method of learning of COIs, and avoiding them, is the COI statement.
Authors and reviewers have the opportunity to submit COI statements with either their submission or their review, and it is mandatory in the case of authors. Authors can also list their funding sources.
You should always check if the authors have declared a COI or their funding source. You can do this by looking at the submission’s metadata. It is possible that you may consider an author’s declared COI too severe to proceed, e.g. their spouse works at the organisation that their research is on, at which point you could reject the article.
Reviewers also have an opportunity to submit a COI statement with their review. They may do so e.g. if they have worked with the author (or in the case of a double blind review, if they suspect they know who the author is from the content), or if they have some relationship with the research separately from the author (e.g. they are a paid consultant for the funders). This will be visible along with their review.
Should a reviewer state a conflict, you should consider based on the nature of the COI whether or not it is appropriate to include their review in your assessment of the research, i.e. whether you think that the gravity and nature of the conflict will make it impossible for the reviewer to objectively evaluate the research. For example, if the reviewer for a double blind review states they suspect the identity of the author, you may still want to proceed, while if they have a financial stake, you may want to seek another reviewer.
N.B. Reviewer COIs will normally not be stated in the published articles, but those of authors and the editor will be.
Determining a COI yourself
As the editor, you possess the most information about the individuals who may have a COI - the authors, any handling editors you might assign, potential reviewers, and yourself. It is important that you use your own knowledge, and the relevant metadata about COIs, institutional affiliation, and other biographical information provided by the authors, to bear any potential COIs in mind when you are selecting reviewers or handling editors.
You should avoid reviewers who have an obvious COI (e.g. same institutional affiliation as the authors), and take note of any potential COIs they declare.
If you are assigning another editor to oversee the peer review, you should avoid any editors who have an obvious COI (e.g. same institutional affiliation as the authors). When extending the invitation to them, you should take note of any potential COIs they may tell you about.
Approaching your own COIs
You yourself may have a COI, either between yourself and the authors, or because you yourself are the author. In this case, you must ensure your editorial permissions are restricted for the duration of the article’s time in review, so that you cannot see who is reviewing it.
If you are the author, additionally you must state this in your COI author statement, along with the fact that your permissions were removed for the duration of the review period.
Procedure when a COI is revealed post-publication
If a COI is revealed after publication, an investigation will likely need to be conducted. This will likely be by the journal itself, together with the publisher and any supporting society, depending on who has appropriate oversight of editorial matters. If your journal, publisher, or supporting society has a policy regarding COIs, this should also be followed.
(N.B. If the allegation of a COI is made against the editor in chief, that individual must step back from any investigation and raise it with a suitable independent person to assess the matter, possibly the Editorial Team, Board, Publisher or someone else.)
The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether the COI in question is likely to have influenced the editorial process or decision-making process in a material way.
Possible Outcomes of an Investigation
There are a few possible outcomes:
No further action will be required, other than checking that the editorial processes and policies are sufficient to prevent a future problem. This would occur if the breach does not seem to have had an outcome on the editorial process. For example, if it is discovered that the author and handling editor were from the same institution and had not declared this, but if the reviews appeared to be independent, and to have played an appropriate and meaningful part in the editor’s decision.
It may be necessary to add a publisher’s statement outlining the COI, if it may be relevant to the editor’s decision. For example, if an editor was discovered to have shares in a company being discussed in an article, which was not disclosed by the editor, but which has not demonstrably had an impact on the outcome.
It may be necessary to issue a correction or retraction if a clear and purposeful breach is discovered, e.g. if the authors are receiving funding for research from a source with a material stake in said research, and have not declared this funding. This process would follow the COPE retraction guidelines.
If you are uncertain about any COI issues, in the first instance you should search the COPE guidelines for any relevant flowcharts or case studies. You can also ask your ]u[ Ubiquity Editorial Account Manager.
External Resources
'' | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
General approach to publication ethics for the editorial office
Editorial conflicts of interest
'' | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers