Conflict of Interest

Communications require everyone involved in publishing — authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher — to disclose any interests that could, or could be seen to, influence their work. A conflict of interest does not in itself mean that anyone has acted wrongly. Undisclosed conflicts, however, damage trust in research. Disclosure lets editors, reviewers, and readers judge the work with full information. This policy follows the COPE Core Practices and the ICMJE Recommendations.

1. What Is a Conflict of Interest?

A conflict of interest exists when professional judgement about a piece of research may be affected by a secondary interest. Conflicts may be:

• Financial:
  • funding, grants, salaries, consultancy fees, honoraria, or paid expert testimony;
  • shares or other financial stakes;
  • payments from organisations that could gain or lose from the publication.
• Institutional: affiliation with, or employment by, an organisation whose programmes, policies, or interests are evaluated in the article. Examples include a ministry, a regional government, a school, a political party, an NGO, or a religious or community organisation.
• Political and ideological: membership of, or an active role in, a political party, campaign, movement, or advocacy group related to the topic of the article.
• Personal and professional relationships: family relationships, close friendships, rivalries, or supervisory, mentoring, or collaborative relationships with people whose work is discussed or evaluated.
• Academic or intellectual: strong commitment to a theory, programme, or product that the author or reviewer helped to develop, such as a curriculum, textbook, training module, or assessment instrument.
• Researcher–participant relationships: studying one’s own students, colleagues, institution, or community, which may affect participants’ freedom to take part and the objectivity of the analysis.

2. Authors

2.1 What must be disclosed

• Every author must disclose all financial and non-financial interests related to the submitted work that arose during the past three years, or that are expected in the future.
• Funding sources must be stated in full in the Funding section, with grant numbers and the role of the funder in the study design, data collection, analysis, writing, and decision to publish.
• Researcher–participant relationships, such as research on one’s own students or institution, must be explained in the Method section. Authors should also explain how the risks to voluntary participation and objectivity were managed.
• Authors who are editors or editorial board members of the journal must disclose this. Their manuscripts are handled independently (see Section 4.3).

2.2 How to disclose

1. Complete the Disclosure Statement in the end-matter of the manuscript, as provided in the journal templates. Briefly describe each interest and explain why it may be relevant.
2. If there are no interests to declare, write: “No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).”
3. In the anonymised manuscript, describe interests without identifying the authors, e.g., “[Funder name removed for peer review]”. Give full details on the title page.
4. When submitting through OJS, mention any significant conflict in the Comments for the Editor, including any reviewers you wish to exclude and why.
5. The corresponding author is responsible for collecting the declarations of all co-authors.
6. If a new interest arises during review or after publication, inform the editor promptly.

3. Reviewers

• Reviewers must decline an invitation, or tell the editor immediately, if they:
  • recognise the authors or believe they know who they are;
  • are at the same institution as the authors, or have collaborated or co-published with them in the past three years;
  • have a supervisory, family, or close personal relationship with them, or a known rivalry;
  • have a financial interest in the outcome;
  • are reviewing work that competes directly with their own unpublished work;
  • feel unable to give an objective assessment for any other reason.
• Reviewers must not use unpublished information from a manuscript for their own advantage. They should not ask authors to cite the reviewer’s own work unless there is a genuine scholarly reason.
• If a conflict becomes apparent during review, the reviewer must stop and inform the editor. The editor decides whether the review can be used.

4. Editors and Editorial Board Members

4.1 General duties

• Editors must not handle manuscripts where they have any of the conflicts described for reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief then assigns another editor.
• Editors must not take part in any decision about a manuscript in which they have a conflict, and must not have access to its review records.
• Editors must not use unpublished information for their own research without the authors’ written consent.

4.2 Declarations

• Editors and editorial board members provide an annual declaration of relevant interests to the Editor-in-Chief.
• Conflicts of the Editor-in-Chief are managed by a senior member of the editorial board or by the publisher.

4.3 Submissions by editors and board members

• Editors and editorial board members may submit manuscripts to the journal. These manuscripts follow the same double-anonymous review process and standards as any other submission.
• The manuscript is handled by an independent editor. The editor-author is excluded from all information about the review, including the reviewers’ identities and the editorial discussion.
• The published article includes a note that one or more authors are members of the editorial team, and that the manuscript was handled independently.
• The number of such articles is monitored to prevent excessive publication by the editorial team.

5. Publisher

• The publisher guarantees the editorial independence of the journal. Commercial, institutional, or political considerations do not influence editorial decisions.
• Any fees, sponsorship, or advertising (if applicable) are kept separate from editorial decisions.

6. Handling Undisclosed Conflicts

1. Identification. An undisclosed conflict may be found by an editor, raised by a reviewer, or reported by a reader. Reports should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief, who acknowledges them within 7 working days.
2. Request for explanation. The editor asks the person concerned to explain, within 14 days for manuscripts in review or 30 days for published articles.
3. Assessment. The editor considers whether the conflict is relevant and whether it could have affected the work or the editorial decision.
4. Action.
   • Manuscripts in review: the conflict is added to the Disclosure Statement, or the manuscript is reviewed again by independent reviewers. In serious cases, the manuscript is rejected.
   • Published articles: a corrigendum adds the disclosure. If the conflict would have changed the editorial decision or seriously affected the findings, the article may be retracted (see the Correction & Retraction policy).
   • Reviewers or editors: their review or decision is disregarded and the manuscript is reassessed. In serious or repeated cases, the person is removed from the reviewer database or editorial board.
5. Serious cases involving deliberate concealment are handled under the Research Misconduct policy.

Sources

• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Core practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Flowcharts [What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript; undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article]. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2024). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (Section II.B: Disclosure of financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflicts of interest). https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
• Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, & World Association of Medical Editors. (2022). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing (Version 4). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12