ArticlePloS one2012
Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in France.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025Article
- Understanding "interests": historical insights for managing conflicts of interest in healthcare and biomedical science.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Review
- A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.BMC medical ethics · 2025Review
- Authors, Reviewers and Nonfinancial Conflict of Interest: Can We Manage This Bond?Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Article
- Peer reviewers' dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2022Article
- The Policies for the Disclosure of Funding and Conflict of Interest in Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.World journal of surgery · 2021Article
- Financial Conflicts of Interest are of Higher Ethical Priority than "Intellectual" Conflicts of Interest.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- Status, Respect, and Stigma: A Qualitative Study of Non-financial Interests in Medicine.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- Article
- Advocate cultivation of academic ethics: why is it necessary?F1000Research · 2019Article
- Academic conflict of interest.Intensive care medicine · 2019Review
- Evaluation of stakeholder views on peer review of NIHR applications for funding: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Conflicts of interest in infection prevention and control research: no smoke without fire. A narrative review.Intensive care medicine · 2018Review
- Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Article
- What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?F1000Research · 2017Review
- Conflicts of Interest and Distribution of Resources to Community Partners: An Organizational Ethics Dilemma.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2017Article
- Coping with the Conflict-of-Interest Pandemic by Listening to and Doubting Everyone, Including Yourself.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Article
- Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.