European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation

14
European Peer Review Guide
in the peer review process, namely, applicants,
reviewers, panels, committee members, Chairs,
programme officers and staff. These principles
include16:
• Honesty in communication;
• Reliability in performing research;
• Objectivity;
• Impartiality and independence;
• Openness and accessibility;
• Duty of care;
• Fairness in providing references and giving
credit;
• Responsibility for the scientists and researchers of
the future.
3.2.1 Conflicts of interest
The prevention and management of conflicts of
interest (CoIs) are the most important ingredients
for ensuring equity and integrity in peer review, and
to preserve the credibility of the process and that
of the responsible organisation. A CoI involves the
abuse or misuse – be it actual, apparent, perceived
or potential – of the trust that the public and the
clients must be able to have in professionals and
administrators who manage or can influence decisions
on research funding.
A CoI is a situation in which financial or personal
considerations have the potential to compromise
or bias the professional judgement and objectivity
of an individual who is in a position to directly or
indirectly influence a decision or an outcome. In
fact, CoIs are broadly divided into two categories:
intangible, i.e., those involving academic activities
and scholarship; and tangible, i.e., those involving
financial relationships17.
In peer review it is important to set out in
advance in as much detail as possible those conditions
that are deemed to constitute perceived and
real conflicts of interest. It may be appropriate to
distinguish conditions that would automatically
disqualify an expert, and those that are potential
conflicts and that must be further determined or
resolved in the light of the specific circumstances.
To uphold the credibility of the process, both real
and perceived conflicts should be addressed.
Typical disqualifying CoIs might relate to:
• The expert’s affiliation;
• Whether he or she stands to gain should the proposal
be funded (or not);
• Personal or family relationship with applicant;
16. See European Science Foundation (2010a), Fostering Research
Integrity in Europe, p. 6.
17. See Columbia University (2003-2004), Responsible Conduct of
Research: Conflict of Interest.
• Research cooperation/joint publications/previous
supervisory role.
In these situations, the reviewers should avoid
assessing a proposal with which they have conflicts
of interest. In the case of panel discussions, these
individuals should not be present when the proposal
in question is being discussed.
While every effort should be made to avoid having
reviewers assessing proposals with which they
have a potential CoI, there may be circumstances
where these situations can be resolved or mitigated
without fully excluding the reviewer with a
declared conflict. For example, when the expertise
of all parties in a review panel is needed, and provided
that the potential CoIs of individuals have
been declared and recorded, it may be decided to
allow the reviewer(s) to assess the proposal and/or
participate in the panel discussion. In this situation
the individual(s) with the potential conflict should
clearly state their own disposition on whether or
not their views are biased and continue their participation
only if they clearly state that despite the
potential conflict they do not feel biased in any
way.
The rules for CoIs may vary according to the
stage of the evaluation, and the role of the expert.
For every proposal evaluated, each expert must sign
a declaration that no CoI exists, or must report such
a condition to the responsible staff member. While
agency staff must be alert at all times, there should
be a strong measure of trust exercised with respect
to the invited experts and their honesty and objectivity.
3.2.2 Managing confidentiality
Each expert should sign a code of conduct before
the start of the evaluation process. The code should
deal both with the requirement to declare any CoI
(see above), and with the obligation to maintain the
confidentiality of the information when required.
Measures to avoid leaks of confidential information
(both deliberate and inadvertent) include:
secure IT systems (password, etc.); watermarks;
restricted use of WIFI, GSM, etc. when appropriate.
The appropriate measures will depend on the
stage of the evaluation, and on the sensitivity of
the research topics under review. Differing levels
of transparency are also important for a good and
impartial peer review. We can broadly identify three
systems:
• Double-blind review: the identity of both the
reviewers and of those being reviewed is kept confidential
from each other;
• Single-blind review: the identity of the applicants