Conflicts of Interest in the Publishing Process

The term conflict of interest is most often discussed relevant to business management, with the following definition containing the fundamental concepts: A situation in which an employee allows personal interests to override legitimate obligations to the employer.

This does not imply that an employee does not have legitimate obligations to himself or herself, because the employee may have moral obligations to family that trump the obligations to the employer. The issue instead should be viewed as allowing a bias in decision making such that the obligations are not properly weighted. Conflicts of interest in the publishing process can be better understood if the preceding definition is modified to be relevant to the publishing process: A situation in which a participant of the publishing process allows personal interests to interfere with obligations to advance the current state of knowledge.

Professional journals are intended to provide knowledge that advances the state of the art. Allowing personal interests or biases to interfere with decisions on publications is counter to advancing the state of knowledge. Two case studies can illustrate this point.

Consider the case in which several individuals colluded to subvert the journal paper review process for their own professional benefit. They submitted their names as potential reviewers for papers defined by specific keywords. Then they used these specialized keywords on their own authored papers to increase the likelihood that their coconspirators would be selected as reviewers. They also submitted assumed names and e-mail addresses that they controlled. When submitting a paper for review, they would submit the names of their coconspirators as possible reviewers along with some of the aliases, such that the authors would hopefully serve as reviewers for their own papers through the aliased names. This took place over a period of several years before the fraudulent practice was discovered. After the scam was discovered, 60 papers had to be retracted at a cost to the publisher. Additionally, both the alleged lead perpetrator and the journal editor retired from their positions, representing just part of the consequences of the act. In this case, the perpetrators created a conflict of interest by allowing personal interests to override legitimate obligations to the journal and the profession. This case also suggested that the review process used by most professional journals may not be as robust as it should be.

Journal editors attempt to find reviewers who are eminently qualified on the topic of the paper, assuming that if a conflict of interest exists, then that person would decline to review the paper. In some cases, a person will accept the review not knowing that a conflict will develop. For example, the paper may be much closer to the work of the reviewer than would be indicated by the abstract. This created a problem in one reported case. A person was asked to review a paper and then during the review realized that the author of the paper was reporting a breakthrough about which the reviewer had been struggling in his search for a solution. The reviewer then recommended that the paper be rejected. He evidently believed that if the paper was rejected by the editor, then the reviewer would have time to submit a paper on the breakthrough and gain priority (priority is the term used to indicate the first publishing of a novel idea). This was deemed a clear conflict of interest, which caused the reviewer to lose his job because he used his self interest to reject a paper that was worthy of publication in order to increase his chances of gaining priority.

Significant conflicts of interest can arise in the journal paper publishing process. Three primary parties are involved in the process, each with rights and each with responsibilities: the author of the paper, the reviewer, and the publisher of the journal and its players. Conflicts between each pair of these participants can arise, with each having negative consequences to the dissemination of new knowledge unless the conflicts are properly handled.

With many paper management systems, the author is requested to submit the names of five potential reviewers, with the legitimate thought that these individuals would have specialized knowledge about the topic and be able to present an unbiased assessment. Inherent in the journal’s request for names is the thought that none of the potential reviewers would have a conflict of interest in serving as a reviewer. However, nothing prevents the author from submitting names of individuals who the author believes will provide a favorable review regardless of the quality of the work. If one of the names is used, would this place the reviewer in a conflict-of-interest position? The requirement of submitting names actually creates the potential for several conflicts: First, what if the author submits names of professionals with whom she/he has had a very close working relationship? Would this imply that the author is allowing professional benefits to him or herself to override obligations to the profession? Second, should the reviewer who feels that the relationship with the author may make it difficult to write an unbiased assessment accept the assignment to review? This may seem to reflect a conflict of interest that prevents the reviewer from meeting his or her obligations to the publisher and potential readers of the paper. Third, should the editor of the journal use the names of the individuals recommended by the author? Because the editor would not necessarily know the possibility for bias, the editor needs to consider the potential conflict of interest associated with submitting the names. These conflict-of-interest dilemmas precede the submission of the review back to the editor, but it is at this point in time when the reviewer may recognize the conflict and have to consider the implications.

Some journals also allow the author to indicate individuals who should not be used as reviewers. This gives the author the opportunity to identify individuals who he or she believes would be in a conflict-of-interest position if asked to review the paper. The editor can consider the submission of names only as a recommendation. Although the editor reserves the right to use the names submitted, the author likely assumes that his or her request to avoid using the person as a reviewer will be granted. The editor may still opt to use the person under the premise that the person would have unique knowledge. This option introduces several practices from which value dilemmas could arise. First, should the editor opt to use the opposed reviewer as a reviewer because the author believes that using the person would create a conflict of interest? Second, should the author be informed that the editor plans on using the opposed reviewer to assess the paper? If used as a reviewer, it may appear to be inviting a conflict of interest. Also, the reviewer would not be reviewing the paper under the condition of anonymity. Third, should the opposed reviewer be specifically asked to comment on any potential conflict of interest with the author? Information from the reviewer about the conflict between the reviewer and the author may negate any bias and enable the editor to better evaluate the review provided. Fourth, if an opposed reviewer is not used, is the editor ignoring a valuable source of information about the subject of the paper? Failure to obtain such information could result in an inferior paper being published. This situation indicates that many aspects of the publishing process have significant potential for conflicts of interest that could influence the dissemination of knowledge and the quality of a professional journal.

Paper management systems generally include a statement such as the following to which each reviewer is expected to respond when submitting a review: Is there a conflict of interest between your work and that of the author?

What conditions would require a reviewer to respond positively? First, it would be better if the statement read: Is there any apparent conflict of interest between your work and that of the author? The statement as currently presented is intended to identify any bias that the reviewer may have when making a recommendation. As an example, an apparent conflict of interest could arise if the author and the reviewer were members of the same professional committee and their views on important issues clashed. In such a case, the professional association between the two could cause a bias in the reviewer’s recommendation. If knowledge of this difference of opinion is known to the editor, then he or she can devote more time to assessing the quality of the review and decide whether or not it is biased. However, a negative review may not necessarily be biased, as the paper may not actually be worthy of publication. Similarly, if the author and reviewer had a positive working relationship, then a positive review is similarly not necessarily biased. In summary, the statement in the paper management system is intended to alert the editor to any situation that may have contributed to a review that does not match the true value of the paper. Knowing of a potential conflict helps ensure that the published articles are worthy of publication or that rejected papers have been treated fairly.

All participants in the journal paper review process face potential conflicts of interest. Authors, reviewers, and publishers benefit when conflicts of interest are minimized. Failure to control conflicts of interest can negatively impact the transfer of knowledge. Although some level of control can be exercised to minimize conflicts of interest, fundamentally the expectation is that all parties involved will act in an ethical manner. Each participant must act selflessly so that readers of journals receive papers that move the state of the art forward.