Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berezin, A. A. (2001). Discouragement of innovation by overcompetitive research funding. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 26(2), 97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfeldt, L. (2006). The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. J., et al. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, B., & Field, M. J. (2009). Institute of Medicine. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Oleinik, A. (2014). Conflict (s) of interest in peer review: Its origins and possible solutions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham-Kanter, G. (2014). Revisiting financial conflicts of interest in FDA advisory committees. The Milbank Quarterly, 92(3), 446–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockey, S. J., & Collins, F. S. (2010). Managing financial conflict of interest in biomedical research. JAMA. 303(23), 2400–2402.

  • 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge AIBS SPARS staff who implemented these reviews and generated these data. We are also appreciative of the discussions with Dr. Genevieve Pham-Kanter at Drexel University.

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest are declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen A. Gallo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gallo, S.A., Lemaster, M. & Glisson, S.R. Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 189–197 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9631-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9631-7

Keywords

  • Peer review
  • Research funding
  • Biomedical
  • Conflict of interest
  • Grant