Is There Social Consensus Regarding Researcher Conflicts of Interest?

Abstract

Consensus around what constitutes researcher conflicts of interest (COIs) and awareness of their influence on our research are two critical steps in ensuring the integrity of our science. In this research, data were collected from individual scholars via 2 surveys 5 years apart and from journals and associations to examine the level of social consensus and moral awareness among scholars, journals, and associations regarding researcher COIs. Although we observed increases in level of social consensus and moral awareness between 2012 and 2017, results still revealed limited agreement about what relationships constitute a COI and limited awareness about the presence of and the ethical issues surrounding COIs. Although all journals and associations we examined supported COI disclosure, most did not provide researchers with detailed COI-related information, guidance, or disclosure tools. Limited social consensus and moral awareness regarding COIs is problematic because it inhibits the recognition, disclosure, and management of COIs and limits ethical decision making. We need to continue and enhance discussions about COIs and aim to create consensus and awareness where we do not have it with the goal of reducing potential scientific misconduct related to COIs.

Keywords:

• conflict of interest
• research ethics
• moral awareness
• social consensus
• ethical decision making

Notes

¹ Research misconduct is defined as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – The Office of Research Integrity, 2017).

² Organizational sciences is the field that focuses on employee and organizational well-being and effectiveness and consists of disciplines such as management, industrial and organizational psychology, and organizational behavior; Rogelberg, 2007).

³ By “proprietary data,” we refer to the research data collected in an organization and is the property of not the researcher but that organization which has the right to declare it or keep it confidential.

⁴ The response rate for the second survey was lower than that of the first survey. This may be due to the fact that over the last few years, the number of e-mails and online surveys individuals receive have increased substantially. In response, more individuals may be deleting or ignoring such e-mails and online survey invitations in 2017 compared to 5 years ago.

⁵ Because the demographics of our second sample closely resembled those of our first sample, we have not conducted a second comparison with the SIOP member profile.

⁶ There have been similar studies in other fields surveying COI disclosure policies of scientific journals. In a survey of 224 environmental, occupational, or public health research journals, Resnik, Konecny, and Kissling (2017) found that 96% of the policies required COI disclosure, 92% required funding disclosure, and 69% addressed nonfinancial COIs. Whereas 76% of the journals defined COIs, 70% provided examples of COIs. In an investigation of 117 medical journals, authors found that 100% of the journals had a COI policy and required COI disclosure. All journals required disclosure of financial COIs, 57% required disclosure of nonfinancial COIs, and 55% of the journals used a standard COI disclosure form (Shawwa et al., 2016). These findings somewhat resemble the trends we found in the organizational sciences journals. In our sample, 100% had a COI policy and required disclosure of financial COIs. However, organizational sciences journals utilized standard COI disclosure forms to a lesser extent (42%), and only 33% required disclosure of nonfinancial COIs. Finally, only 58% provided some definition and examples of COI, and did this particularly via links to COI documents in biomedicine.