Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 189–197 | Cite as

Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection

  • Stephen A. Gallo
  • Michael Lemaster
  • Scott R. Glisson
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Peer review Research funding Biomedical Conflict of interest Grant 

References

  1. Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA, 289(4), 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berezin, A. A. (2001). Discouragement of innovation by overcompetitive research funding. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 26(2), 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drazen, J. M., et al. (2010). Toward more uniform conflict disclosures—the updated ICMJE conflict of interest reporting form. New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 188–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gallo, S. A., Carpenter, A. S., & Glisson, S. R. (2013). Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: Effects on review outcomes. PLoS One, 8(8), e71693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Langfeldt, L. (2006). The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lee, C. J., et al. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lo, B., & Field, M. J. (2009). Institute of Medicine. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  8. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. National Institutes of Health. (2014). Managing Conflict of Interest in NIH Peer Review of Grants and Contracts. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer_coi.htm. Accessed 17 October 2014.
  10. Oleinik, A. (2014). Conflict (s) of interest in peer review: Its origins and possible solutions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pham-Kanter, G. (2014). Revisiting financial conflicts of interest in FDA advisory committees. The Milbank Quarterly, 92(3), 446–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rockey, S. J., & Collins, F. S. (2010). Managing financial conflict of interest in biomedical research. JAMA. 303(23), 2400–2402.Google Scholar
  13. Wood, F., & Wessely, S. (2003). Peer review of grant applications: A systematic review. In Jefferson Godlee (Ed.), Peer review in health sciences (pp. 14–31). London: BMJ Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen A. Gallo
    • 1
  • Michael Lemaster
    • 1
  • Scott R. Glisson
    • 1
  1. 1.Scientific Peer Advisory and Review ServicesAmerican Institute of Biological SciencesRestonUSA

Personalised recommendations