Why Conflict of Interest Matters in Research and How to Manage It

How to Handle Conflicts of Interest in Academic Publishing

Introduction

As research becomes increasingly collaborative, multi-centre, and commercially relevant, conflicts of interest (COIs) are more common than ever. Funders support projects with commercial potential, researchers collaborate with industry, and editors and reviewers work in overlapping professional networks. None of this is inherently problematic—until competing interests are not transparently disclosed or properly managed.

A conflict of interest arises when a person’s professional judgement about research and publication could be influenced by secondary interests such as financial gain, personal relationships, academic rivalry, or ideological beliefs. The conflict itself is not automatically misconduct; the ethical problem emerges when it is hidden or unmanaged, undermining the credibility of the research and the fairness of the peer-review process.

This article explains what counts as a conflict of interest in academic publishing, why COIs matter, and how authors, reviewers, editors, journals, and institutions can handle them responsibly. It offers concrete examples, policy recommendations, and practical templates for disclosure and management, helping to protect both individual researchers and the wider scholarly community.

Understanding Conflicts of Interest in Academic Publishing

A conflict of interest occurs when professional decisions about research and publication may be influenced by external interests that are not purely academic. These interests can be financial, personal, institutional, or ideological. In practice, almost everyone has some competing interests—what matters is whether they are transparently declared and sensibly managed.

Common situations in which COIs arise include:

• Authors receiving funding or consultancy fees from companies that may benefit from favourable results.
• Reviewers assessing manuscripts by close collaborators, rivals, or former students, making it difficult to remain fully impartial.
• Editors overseeing papers submitted by colleagues from their own department or by frequent co-authors.

In each of these cases, the individual’s actions might be influenced—deliberately or unconsciously—by factors other than the scientific quality of the work. This is why major publishers and ethics bodies now require explicit COI policies and declarations.

Types of Conflicts of Interest in Research Publishing

1. Financial Conflicts of Interest

Financial COIs are the most widely recognised form and are often the easiest to identify. They include any situation where a direct or indirect financial relationship could influence the research or its evaluation.

Examples:

• Research funded by a company that manufactures the drug, device, or technology under investigation.
• Authors who hold patents, equity, or stock options in a company whose products are evaluated in the paper.
• Reviewers or editors who receive consultancy payments, honoraria, or travel support from organisations with a stake in the results.

These relationships do not automatically invalidate the research, but they must be disclosed so readers and editors can interpret the findings with appropriate context.

2. Personal Relationships

Personal conflicts arise when the people involved in the publication process have close relationships that may affect impartiality.

Examples:

• Reviewing a manuscript authored by a spouse, partner, family member, or close friend.
• Handling a paper by someone with whom there has been a serious personal dispute or long-standing animosity.
• Evaluating work by a former supervisor, PhD student, or current mentee with whom one has a strong personal bond.

Because objectivity may be compromised—positively or negatively—such relationships should be acknowledged, and the person should usually recuse themselves from the decision-making process.

3. Academic and Institutional Conflicts

Academic COIs involve competition, prestige, or institutional loyalty. These can be subtle but powerful.

Examples:

• A reviewer asked to evaluate a paper from a direct competitor working on the same topic, where publication could affect grant success or career advancement.
• An editor deciding on a manuscript submitted by colleagues from their own department or research centre.
• Authors over-citing their own work or that of their immediate colleagues to boost citation metrics.

These conflicts may not involve money, but they can still skew judgement and need to be acknowledged and managed.

4. Political, Religious, and Ideological Bias

Sometimes COIs are rooted in values or beliefs rather than finances or career competition. Editors and reviewers may hold strong opinions on controversial topics (e.g., climate policy, reproductive rights, AI ethics), which could colour their evaluation of manuscripts.

Examples:

• A reviewer systematically recommending rejection of studies that conflict with their personal beliefs.
• An editor hesitant to publish research that challenges dominant policy positions or widely accepted narratives.
• Ideological opposition to certain methods (e.g., animal research, particular social research methods).

In such cases, journals should aim to balance perspectives by involving multiple reviewers and, where possible, implement double-blind review systems.

5. Conflicts Linked to Editorial and Peer Review Roles

Editors and reviewers hold powerful positions in scholarly communication. COIs in these roles can directly distort the peer-review process.

Examples:

• Editors overseeing submissions from their own students, co-authors, or institutional colleagues without declaring the relationship.
• Reviewers delaying or sabotaging a competitor’s manuscript to gain a publication advantage.
• Editors making unusually rapid favourable decisions on manuscripts from personal friends or partners.

These behaviours can be difficult to detect unless journals enforce strong policies and encourage transparent declaration of relationships.

Why Conflicts of Interest Matter

Unmanaged COIs can have serious consequences for science and society. Key risks include:

• Compromised research integrity: Biased methods, selective reporting, or exaggerated conclusions may enter the literature.
• Loss of credibility: If undisclosed conflicts are revealed later, trust in the authors, journal, and even the field can be damaged.
• Legal and ethical repercussions: Undisclosed COIs may breach institutional policies, funder requirements, or professional codes of conduct.
• Distorted evidence base: Skewed peer review and editorial decisions can lead to publication bias, shaping scientific “consensus” in unfair ways.

By contrast, when COIs are openly disclosed and carefully managed, readers can make informed judgements, and the research ecosystem retains credibility—even when complex relationships exist.

Best Practices for Handling Conflicts of Interest

1. Prioritise Full and Early Disclosure

The foundation of COI management is transparency. All parties—authors, reviewers, and editors—should disclose potential conflicts as early as possible in the process.

For authors:

• Provide a clear conflict-of-interest statement with every submission, listing funding sources, financial ties, and relevant personal or professional relationships.
• Specify who funded the study and what role, if any, the funders played in study design, data collection, analysis, or publication decisions.
• Ensure that all co-authors review and agree on the COI declaration.

Sample author COI statement:

“Author A has received research funding from Company X. Author B holds a patent related to the technology evaluated in this study. Author C declares no conflicts of interest. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or manuscript preparation.”

For reviewers:

• Immediately inform the editor if you recognise a manuscript authored by close collaborators, relatives, or direct competitors.
• Decline the review if you cannot be confident of your ability to provide an impartial evaluation.

For editors:

• Declare any relationships with authors or funders and pass the manuscript to an independent editor where appropriate.
• Record COI decisions for transparency and internal accountability.

2. Establish Clear COI Policies at Journal Level

Journals should provide detailed, public conflict-of-interest policies that describe:

• what constitutes a financial, personal, institutional, or ideological COI;
• how and when COIs must be disclosed by authors, reviewers, and editors; and
• how the journal will manage disclosed conflicts and respond to undisclosed ones discovered later.

These policies should be prominently linked in Instructions for Authors and review guidelines, and new editors and reviewers should receive training or guidance on COI management.

3. Use Independent Editorial Oversight

To mitigate COIs in editorial decision-making, journals can implement several safeguards:

• Independent handling editors: When an editor has a conflict (e.g., shared affiliation or recent co-authorship with an author), another editor should handle the manuscript.
• Double-blind review where feasible: Removing author and reviewer identities can reduce certain biases, though it is not a complete solution.
• Ethics or oversight committees: Complex cases can be reviewed by an editorial board or ethics committee to ensure decisions are fair and consistent.

4. Enforce Objectivity in Peer Review

Reviewers are central to safeguarding research quality. Journals should encourage reviewers to:

• decline invitations where a conflict exists or disclose the relationship and let editors decide whether to proceed;
• focus feedback on methods, evidence, and clarity, avoiding ad hominem comments or competitive behaviour; and
• inform the editor if they suspect undisclosed COIs or unethical practices in a manuscript.

Editors, in turn, should monitor reviews for signs of bias (excessively harsh or unusually favourable comments) and act when needed.

5. Take Corrective Action When COIs Are Discovered Post-Publication

Even with clear policies, some conflicts come to light only after publication. When undisclosed or mishandled COIs are identified, journals should:

• publish a correction or expression of concern detailing the conflict and any impact on interpretation;
• retract the article in severe cases where COIs are tied to data manipulation, serious bias, or other forms of misconduct; and
• review internal processes to prevent similar issues in future, which may include training, policy updates, or sanctions for repeat offenders.

How Journals Are Strengthening COI Policies

Many leading publishers and professional organisations have tightened COI requirements in recent years. For example:

• The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides standardised COI disclosure forms and guidelines for medical journals.
• Major publishers such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley require explicit disclosure of financial and non-financial conflicts from authors, reviewers, and editors.
• Open-access platforms increasingly mandate transparent funding and COI statements as part of their commitment to open science.

These frameworks are designed to make COI policies more consistent and to provide clear expectations across journals and disciplines.

The Role of Institutions in Conflict of Interest Management

Universities and research institutes also have a crucial part to play in managing conflicts of interest. Their responsibilities include:

• Developing institutional COI policies aligned with international standards and publisher requirements.
• Offering training and guidance on ethical authorship, funding disclosure, and responsible collaboration.
• Conducting audits or internal reviews to monitor compliance with COI and research integrity policies.
• Providing support mechanisms—such as ethics committees or research integrity offices—for handling complex or disputed cases.

When institutions, journals, and funders work together, they create a more coherent and supportive environment for ethical publishing.

Practical Tips for Researchers Managing Their Own COIs

For individual researchers, handling conflicts of interest ethically often comes down to a few practical habits:

• Keep a record of all funding sources, consultancy roles, patents, and relevant financial interests for easy reference when completing COI forms.
• Discuss potential conflicts openly with co-authors early in the project and agree on how they will be reported in manuscripts.
• When in doubt, disclose: if you are unsure whether something counts as a conflict, transparency is almost always the safer option.
• Seek independent advice from ethics committees, mentors, or institutional officers if you are uncertain how to proceed in a complex situation.
• Use human editing and proofreading to ensure COI disclosures, acknowledgements, and funding statements are clearly worded and prominently presented, minimising the risk of misunderstandings.

Conclusion: Upholding Integrity Through Transparency

Conflicts of interest are an unavoidable part of the modern research ecosystem. What distinguishes ethical scholarship from problematic practice is not the absence of competing interests, but the honesty and rigour with which they are handled. Transparent disclosure, clear policies, independent oversight, and thoughtful editorial practice are all essential tools for managing COIs without paralysing collaboration or innovation.

By taking conflicts of interest seriously—declaring them fully, managing them sensibly, and correcting the record when necessary—authors, reviewers, editors, journals, and institutions help safeguard the credibility of academic publishing. Combined with robust methods, clear writing, and careful human proofreading and editing, responsible COI management allows research to be judged on its true scientific merit, maintaining trust in the scholarly record and supporting the continued advancement of knowledge.