Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22496913›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in France.

Hendy Abdoul, Christophe Perrey, Florence Tubach, Philippe Amiel, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski, Corinne Alberti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Academic conflict of interest.Intensive care medicine · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Conflicts of Interest and Distribution of Resources to Community Partners: An Organizational Ethics Dilemma.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hendy AbdoulAP-HP, Hôpital Robert Debré, Unité d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Paris, France. hendy.abdoul@rdb.aphp.fr
Christophe Perrey
Florence Tubach
Philippe Amiel
Isabelle Durand-Zaleski
Corinne Alberti

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and conflicts of interest (CoI). CoIs raise questions of fairness, transparency, and trust in grant allocation. Few observational studies have assessed these issues. We report the results of a qualitative study on reviewers' and applicants' perceptions and experiences of CoIs in reviews of French academic grant applications. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL

findingsWe designed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and direct observation. We asked members of assessment panels, external reviewers, and applicants to participate in semi-structured interviews. Two independent researchers conducted in-depth reviews and line-by-line coding of all transcribed interviews, which were also subjected to Tropes® software text analysis, to detect and qualify themes associated with CoIs. Most participants (73/98) spontaneously reported that non-financial CoIs predominated over financial CoIs. Non-financial CoIs mainly involved rivalry among disciplines, cronyism, and geographic and academic biases. However, none of the participants challenged the validity of peer review. Reviewers who felt they might be affected by CoIs said they reacted in a variety of ways: routine refusal to review, routine attempt to conduct an impartial review, or decision on a case-by-case basis. Multiple means of managing non-financial CoIs were suggested, including increased transparency throughout the review process, with public disclosure of non-financial CoIs, and careful selection of independent reviewers, including foreign experts and methodologists.

conclusionsOur study underscores the importance of considering non-financial CoIs when reviewing research grant applications, in addition to financial CoIs. Specific measures are needed to prevent a negative impact of non-financial CoIs on the fairness of resource allocation. Whether and how public disclosure of non-financial CoIs should be accomplished remains debatable.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestBiomedical ResearchFinancing, OrganizedFranceOrganizationsPeer Review, ResearchQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID22496913
PMCPMC3322153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.