Cargando…

Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France

BACKGROUND: Peer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and conflicts of interest (CoI). CoIs raise questions of fairness, transparency, and trust in grant allocation. Few ob...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abdoul, Hendy, Perrey, Christophe, Tubach, Florence, Amiel, Philippe, Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle, Alberti, Corinne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322153/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22496913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035247
_version_ 1782229038807384064
author Abdoul, Hendy
Perrey, Christophe
Tubach, Florence
Amiel, Philippe
Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
Alberti, Corinne
author_facet Abdoul, Hendy
Perrey, Christophe
Tubach, Florence
Amiel, Philippe
Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
Alberti, Corinne
author_sort Abdoul, Hendy
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Peer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and conflicts of interest (CoI). CoIs raise questions of fairness, transparency, and trust in grant allocation. Few observational studies have assessed these issues. We report the results of a qualitative study on reviewers’ and applicants’ perceptions and experiences of CoIs in reviews of French academic grant applications. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We designed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and direct observation. We asked members of assessment panels, external reviewers, and applicants to participate in semi-structured interviews. Two independent researchers conducted in-depth reviews and line-by-line coding of all transcribed interviews, which were also subjected to Tropes® software text analysis, to detect and qualify themes associated with CoIs. Most participants (73/98) spontaneously reported that non-financial CoIs predominated over financial CoIs. Non-financial CoIs mainly involved rivalry among disciplines, cronyism, and geographic and academic biases. However, none of the participants challenged the validity of peer review. Reviewers who felt they might be affected by CoIs said they reacted in a variety of ways: routine refusal to review, routine attempt to conduct an impartial review, or decision on a case-by-case basis. Multiple means of managing non-financial CoIs were suggested, including increased transparency throughout the review process, with public disclosure of non-financial CoIs, and careful selection of independent reviewers, including foreign experts and methodologists. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the importance of considering non-financial CoIs when reviewing research grant applications, in addition to financial CoIs. Specific measures are needed to prevent a negative impact of non-financial CoIs on the fairness of resource allocation. Whether and how public disclosure of non-financial CoIs should be accomplished remains debatable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3322153
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33221532012-04-11 Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France Abdoul, Hendy Perrey, Christophe Tubach, Florence Amiel, Philippe Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle Alberti, Corinne PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Peer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and conflicts of interest (CoI). CoIs raise questions of fairness, transparency, and trust in grant allocation. Few observational studies have assessed these issues. We report the results of a qualitative study on reviewers’ and applicants’ perceptions and experiences of CoIs in reviews of French academic grant applications. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We designed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and direct observation. We asked members of assessment panels, external reviewers, and applicants to participate in semi-structured interviews. Two independent researchers conducted in-depth reviews and line-by-line coding of all transcribed interviews, which were also subjected to Tropes® software text analysis, to detect and qualify themes associated with CoIs. Most participants (73/98) spontaneously reported that non-financial CoIs predominated over financial CoIs. Non-financial CoIs mainly involved rivalry among disciplines, cronyism, and geographic and academic biases. However, none of the participants challenged the validity of peer review. Reviewers who felt they might be affected by CoIs said they reacted in a variety of ways: routine refusal to review, routine attempt to conduct an impartial review, or decision on a case-by-case basis. Multiple means of managing non-financial CoIs were suggested, including increased transparency throughout the review process, with public disclosure of non-financial CoIs, and careful selection of independent reviewers, including foreign experts and methodologists. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the importance of considering non-financial CoIs when reviewing research grant applications, in addition to financial CoIs. Specific measures are needed to prevent a negative impact of non-financial CoIs on the fairness of resource allocation. Whether and how public disclosure of non-financial CoIs should be accomplished remains debatable. Public Library of Science 2012-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3322153/ /pubmed/22496913 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035247 Text en Abdoul et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Abdoul, Hendy
Perrey, Christophe
Tubach, Florence
Amiel, Philippe
Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
Alberti, Corinne
Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France
title Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France
title_full Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France
title_fullStr Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France
title_full_unstemmed Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France
title_short Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France
title_sort non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in france
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322153/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22496913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035247
work_keys_str_mv AT abdoulhendy nonfinancialconflictsofinterestinacademicgrantevaluationaqualitativestudyofmultiplestakeholdersinfrance
AT perreychristophe nonfinancialconflictsofinterestinacademicgrantevaluationaqualitativestudyofmultiplestakeholdersinfrance
AT tubachflorence nonfinancialconflictsofinterestinacademicgrantevaluationaqualitativestudyofmultiplestakeholdersinfrance
AT amielphilippe nonfinancialconflictsofinterestinacademicgrantevaluationaqualitativestudyofmultiplestakeholdersinfrance
AT durandzaleskiisabelle nonfinancialconflictsofinterestinacademicgrantevaluationaqualitativestudyofmultiplestakeholdersinfrance
AT alberticorinne nonfinancialconflictsofinterestinacademicgrantevaluationaqualitativestudyofmultiplestakeholdersinfrance