COPE CONSULTATION/GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON HANDLING COMPETING INTERESTS
Aim
The aim of this document is to encourage discussion and to capture a record of the issues around competing interests, especially when they arise after publication, to help inform and progress the debate, and to firm-up guidance where that is indicated. Please comment.
Introduction
Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests (COIs)) are ubiquitous. One definition is as follows
“A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.”[1]
Publishers have interpreted competing interests in a number of ways: one example is from the PLOS journals [2] “A competing interest is anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to a journal. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person.” We welcome other examples.
It is also useful to note that competing interests may arise in the conduct of research itself, and in the context of publishing are thus not restricted to the presentation, peer review, decision making or publication of articles in journals.
These generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies (eg, journals ask for a variety of levels of disclosure for financial competing interests).
Issues that have arisen
Competing interests are a regular topic at the COPE Forum. In particular, we have seen a number of cases recently in which competing interests have come to light after publication and where editors have been unwilling, or uncertain of the process, to issue a correction.
This discussion document lays out the policy again, and clarifies processes for handling competing interests, especially if they arise after publication. In particular, it is worth noting that correcting the record in this way should be regarded as a positive step by a journal.
Clarification of policy
COPE’s Code of Conduct item 17 clearly states that “Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.” The intention of the policy is in line with increasing moves across all of scholarly publishing to increase transparency for all aspects of reporting. In addition, it has a specific aim in the context of publication ethics as competing interests can threaten the integrity of the work being reported.
Practical issues for handling competing interests
- Ideally, issues relating to competing interests should be handled before publication (ie, during the review process of the journal). Hence, the first and most important issue is that journals and publishers should have a clear process in place, and that it is clearly and regularly articulated to authors, reviewers, editors and journal staff.
- Competing interests declarations should ideally be a separate step in the submission or review process, with clear explanations and examples.
- The competing interest policy should be appropriately managed. This is most appropriately done by senior staff at the journal and/or publisher.
- Journals and publishers should have a process in place for handling the reporting of competing interests come to light during the publication process—for example from reviewers. The process is laid out in this flowchart.
- Journals and publishers should have a process in place for handling the reporting of competing interests come to light after publication. The process is laid out in this flowchart. On occasion, these reports may come from anonymous individuals, for which guidelines are available.
- It is most important that when a previously undeclared competing interest has been found, the journal ensures it is appropriately documented on the published manuscript, with linking to the version of record—for example, a letter to the editor is not generally sufficient.
- When a previously undeclared competing interest comes to light, journals may wish to review and if necessary make their policy stronger or clearer.
We encourage feedback on this consultation document, in particular if there are practical obstacles that journals or publishers have encountered in handling competing interests.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
2. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests
Comments
I find the flowchart helpful - but it assumes an allegation of COI is substantiated. Most situations I have encountered are not clear cut. Apparent COI may not, on investigation, be as alledged. Could the flowchart reflect less clear cut situations?
to post comments
Our journal specializes in review articles, some of which are supported by both direct funding and in-kind support, which the authors would like to acknowledge. This can lead to lengthy declarations that are not always easy to accommodate given the journal's page budget for the print edition. In such cases, would COPE find it acceptable to publish an abbreviated CoI in the article that directs readers to a more complete CoI in a Supporting Information file? Some of our authors also work on committees that are supported by industry funding or prepare articles stemming from conference presentations or workshops that received commercial sponsorship. While direct funding of research activities and receipt of a speaker honorarium are clearly understood to be deserving of declaration, how far does the interpretation of "funding" extend and how directly does the funding need to be connected to the authors' work to warrant declaration? Does "funding" also cover in-kind support such as administrative assistance or provision of data or materials, or should in-kind support be noted as a standard acknowledgment rather than a CoI?
to post comments
The COPE flowcharts and much of the thinking behind the Discussion brief is in terms of undisclosed Conflicts of Interest. However, another layer to this is what to do about disclosed Conflicts of Interest when they appear problematic. Disclosure is good for clarity, but does not necessarily make the the problem go away; We now notice that the Elephant in the Room has pink toenails.
to post comments
Above, COPE says it "welcome[s] other examples". Here's what we say in the Wiley ethics guidelines. This reflects (and quotes) other guidance (including that from COPE). So it is derivative and supportive of the "community standards" that we were aware of at the time of writing, rather than breaking new ground. http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines#subSection6.7
to post comments