If I were asked to review a paper, under what circumstances would I be expected to decline out of a conflict of interest? Could I review a paper for someone...

  • I have collaborated with N years ago?
  • Who I am currently collaborating with, but we have not yet published a paper together?
  • Who is currently or was once in the same institution as I?
  • 3
    My rule of thumb: when in doubt, I likely have a conflict of interest. – Gerhard Jun 28 '16 at 12:51

The answer to your question depends on context. I find three key elements to the decision of whether or not to declare conflict of interest:

  1. Formal rules: some venues have an explicit conflict of interest policy; if so, abide by it.
  2. Size of reviewer pool: sometimes, you have an extremely specialized subject, in which the number of people qualified to review a paper at all are quite small. In such a case, one should generally be more permissive.
  3. Formality of venue: conflict of interest for a journal or top conference is generally more strict than for less formal venues like workshops, especially for ones intended to discuss early-stage work where all you're really looking for is a sanity check.

Now, to address some specifics:

  • I generally hold that it's a bad idea to review one's current or recent collaborators except in the most informal of venues.
  • Co-authors is often the same as one's collaborators, but not always --- one might be collaborating but not yet be published together, or might be a very distant co-author (for example, I'm not going to worry about conflict of interest with most of the co-authors on my 600+ author paper).
  • I also don't generally count co-organization as collaboration, since that's often a fairly narrow relationship.
  • Being at the same institution (currently or in the recent past) may or may not be a conflict depending on how close the organization is: in some places different departments might as well be different institutions; in others, it's one tight family.
  • Being funded by an organization is almost certainly a conflict of interest.

Barring a policy at the venue asking for the review, I tend to use the US NSF Rules which basically come down to:

  • Family
  • In the last five years:
    • Co-author or co-editor
    • Co-PI on a grant
  • PhD Supervisor or supervisee
  • Direct financial conflict (such as an industrial funder, etc.)

And I ignore the same institution requirement (at the NSF people at the same university or other institution cannot review each others' grant proposal, but I think that's too much for paper review).

  • 1
    I find NSF rules a bit too restrictive for reviewing because of one additional bullet that you left out: "Co-editing of a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings within the last 24 months." Because the size of editorial boards and conference organizations are often quite large, that can disqualify a lot of people with whom one actually has fairly minimal contact. – jakebeal Jun 28 '16 at 21:40
  • I think the same institution requirement is useful. It benefits me when my colleagues are publishing well so there is at least room for a perceived conflict. At large institutions, this may be mitigated but I would certainly turn down any offers to review work by students or colleagues in my department. – Benjamin Mako Hill Jun 29 '16 at 8:45
  • @BenjaminMakoHill, sure, but unless the venue you are reviewing for has a requirement on this, I think that it's up to your personal ethics to make that call. I'm at a huge university (~50k students and a ton of PhDs), so I usually don't sweat it. – Bill Barth Jun 29 '16 at 13:57
  • @jakebeal, that's your personal call unless your venue has a hard requirement on that. I've been turning down all TPC requests lately due to health issues, so that makes it easier for me. – Bill Barth Jun 29 '16 at 13:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.