Difference between revisions of "Theme:077cf9e7-62ff-4379-ab35-bed2a1821c15"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|Important Because=By not declaring COIs, reviewers undermine the transparancy and honesty of the application process. The role of reviewers and the process of reviewing grant applications differs greatly among RFOs. However, many RFOs stipulate the role of reviewers for internal (staff) members, invited external reviewers and appointed committee members. In all instances having a COI when reviewing a grant proposal needs to be declared | |Important Because=By not declaring COIs, reviewers undermine the transparancy and honesty of the application process. The role of reviewers and the process of reviewing grant applications differs greatly among RFOs. However, many RFOs stipulate the role of reviewers for internal (staff) members, invited external reviewers and appointed committee members. In all instances having a COI when reviewing a grant proposal needs to be declared | ||
|Important For=Research funding organisations; Funders; Reviewers | |Important For=Research funding organisations; Funders; Reviewers | ||
| − | |Has Best Practice=The Dutch funding agencies ZonMw and NWO have set up guidelines for dealing with COIs in the reviewing process. COI citeria include: | + | |Has Best Practice=<small>The Dutch funding agencies ZonMw and NWO have set up guidelines for dealing with COIs in the reviewing process. COI citeria include:</small> |
| − | *personal interests | + | *<small>personal interests</small> |
| − | *professional interests | + | *<small>professional interests</small> |
| − | *interests arising out of other positions | + | *<small>interests arising out of other positions</small> |
| − | *business (financial or economic) interests | + | *<small>business (financial or economic) interests</small> |
| − | The following personal interests always exclude participation in the process: | + | <small>The following personal interests always exclude participation in the process:</small> |
| − | *being the applicant or joint applicant | + | *<small>being the applicant or joint applicant</small> |
| − | *having written any part of an application without being an applicant or joint applicant | + | *<small>having written any part of an application without being an applicant or joint applicant</small> |
| − | *having any of the following relations with the applicant or joint applicant | + | *<small>having any of the following relations with the applicant or joint applicant</small> |
| − | **actual or anticipated project manager or sub-project manager | + | **<small>actual or anticipated project manager or sub-project manager</small> |
| − | **direct manager | + | **<small>direct manager</small> |
| − | **blood relation or affinity (up to and including the third degree | + | **<small>blood relation or affinity (up to and including the third degree</small> |
| − | **contract of cohabitation (other than a civil partnership | + | **<small>contract of cohabitation (other than a civil partnership</small> |
| − | **dean of the applicant’s institute<ref>NWO (2019). Code for Dealing with Personal Interests. Accessed via: https://www.nwo.nl/en/common/subsidies/funding-process-explained/code-for-dealing-with-personal-interests</ref> | + | **<small>dean of the applicant’s institute<ref>NWO (2019). Code for Dealing with Personal Interests. Accessed via: https://www.nwo.nl/en/common/subsidies/funding-process-explained/code-for-dealing-with-personal-interests</ref></small> |
| − | Both ZonMw and NWO ask reviewers to declare their COIs. Next, the head of the committee assesses the impact of the declared COIs. He or she can decide if the reviewer cannot assess a particular application, or if he or she should not partake in the review process at all. Subsequently, the committee states whether they agree or disagree with this decision. Moreover, to ensure impartiality, individual reviewers do not get to see each other’s scores. After the review process has concluded, the reviewers assess whether the process has raised new insights into COIs. In the worst case scenario, if the process has been influenced by a reviewer’s COI, the whole review process is redone. | + | <small>Both ZonMw and NWO ask reviewers to declare their COIs. Next, the head of the committee assesses the impact of the declared COIs. He or she can decide if the reviewer cannot assess a particular application, or if he or she should not partake in the review process at all. Subsequently, the committee states whether they agree or disagree with this decision. Moreover, to ensure impartiality, individual reviewers do not get to see each other’s scores. After the review process has concluded, the reviewers assess whether the process has raised new insights into COIs. In the worst case scenario, if the process has been influenced by a reviewer’s COI, the whole review process is redone.</small> |
<references /> | <references /> | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 16:03, 17 March 2020
ThemesConflicts of interest in the review of grant proposals
What is this about?
When a grant proposal is reviewed, the reviewers can have a confict of interest (COI). COIs should be declared by external reviewers and employees of research funding organizations (RFOs). RFOs and/or host institutions applying for funding need to have a code in place stating what constitutes a COI, how to declare a COIs, and what steps need to be taken when there is a COI.
Why is this important?
By not declaring COIs, reviewers undermine the transparancy and honesty of the application process. The role of reviewers and the process of reviewing grant applications differs greatly among RFOs. However, many RFOs stipulate the role of reviewers for internal (staff) members, invited external reviewers and appointed committee members. In all instances having a COI when reviewing a grant proposal needs to be declared
For whom is this important?
What are the best practices?
The Dutch funding agencies ZonMw and NWO have set up guidelines for dealing with COIs in the reviewing process. COI citeria include:
- personal interests
- professional interests
- interests arising out of other positions
- business (financial or economic) interests
The following personal interests always exclude participation in the process:
- being the applicant or joint applicant
- having written any part of an application without being an applicant or joint applicant
- having any of the following relations with the applicant or joint applicant
- actual or anticipated project manager or sub-project manager
- direct manager
- blood relation or affinity (up to and including the third degree
- contract of cohabitation (other than a civil partnership
- dean of the applicant’s institute[1]
Both ZonMw and NWO ask reviewers to declare their COIs. Next, the head of the committee assesses the impact of the declared COIs. He or she can decide if the reviewer cannot assess a particular application, or if he or she should not partake in the review process at all. Subsequently, the committee states whether they agree or disagree with this decision. Moreover, to ensure impartiality, individual reviewers do not get to see each other’s scores. After the review process has concluded, the reviewers assess whether the process has raised new insights into COIs. In the worst case scenario, if the process has been influenced by a reviewer’s COI, the whole review process is redone.
- ↑ NWO (2019). Code for Dealing with Personal Interests. Accessed via: https://www.nwo.nl/en/common/subsidies/funding-process-explained/code-for-dealing-with-personal-interests
The Embassy Editorial team, The Embassy editorial team, Iris Lechner contributed to this theme. Latest contribution was Oct 28, 2020
