Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):189-197 (2016)

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 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
Keywords Peer review  Research funding  Biomedical  Conflict of interest  Grant
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-015-9631-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,593
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Conflict of Interest: The Importance of Potential. [REVIEW]Dr Imogen Evans - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):393-396.
Peer Review: Selecting the Best Science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.
Conflict of Interest: The Importance of Potential.Imogen Evans - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):393-396.
The Impact of Conflict of Interest on Trust in Science.Paul J. Friedman - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):413-420.
Peer Review and Innovation.Raymond Spier - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.
The Greening of Bioethics: Corporate Funding of Bioethics Research.Leigh Turner - 1998 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7 (3):326-328.
The Troublesome Semantics of Conflict of Interest.Paul J. Friedman - 1992 - Ethics and Behavior 2 (4):245 – 251.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-04

Total views
23 ( #480,005 of 2,462,057 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #448,768 of 2,462,057 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes