Conflict of interest and suitability declarations video

This video was recorded in August 2024.

Video transcript

Speaker

Dr Justin Graf – Director of Investigator Grants, NHMRC

Welcome (5sec)

Hello everyone, and welcome to the Conflict of Interest and Suitability video. I'm Justin Graf, the Director of the Investigator Grant Scheme at NHMRC. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal people, the traditional owners of the lands in which I'm joining you here in Canberra, and to acknowledge all of the other traditional owners on the lands that you're viewing this video. I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging and acknowledge any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may be viewing this video. Thank you for taking part in this year's peer review and for the very important contribution that you're making to NHMRC's peer review process. This video will provide information on the Conflict of Interest and Suitability declaration phase whereby all peer reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts they have with the chief investigator on the application and declare how suitable they are to review the application. Other short videos will also be available shortly which cover topics of keen interest to peer reviewers which should help you undertake the important task of peer review. Investigator Grants employs an application centric peer review process which means that every application is allocated 5 highly suitable and non-conflicted peer reviewers. Declaring any conflicts you have and how well your expertise matches the application subject matter is crucial in ensuring each application gets the best fit of possible peer reviewers. You will be provided on average 100 applications to declare against but may receive up to 250 in some fields of research in some rare cases.

Overview of the declaration process (1min 14sec)

Your bespoke list of applications is created by matching the peer review information you have within your Sapphire profile to the subject matter of the application which is provided by the applicant. Your role as a peer reviewer is to review the assessment summaries of each application assigned to you within Sapphire and indicate your level of suitability to assess the application and identify any actual or perceived conflicts of interest you might have with the applicant. Following your declarations NHMRC may seek confirmation if insufficient detail is provided about a conflict, and you may also seek clarification from your secretariat at any time during the process. Based on these declarations NHMRC then assigns each application to 5 of the best fit peer reviewers to undertake full assessment. We typically allocate around 80%-90% of applications to peer reviewers who have declared a yes or moderate level of suitability. You're reminded of the importance of confidentiality and privacy regarding aspects of the peer review process. NHMRC is committed to ensuring that interests of any kind are dealt with consistently, transparently and with rigour in accordance with Section 16A and B of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014. Once appointed as a peer reviewer, you have a legal obligation to disclose details of any conflicts of interest.

Disclosure of interest (2min 52sec)

Section 3.4 of the Investigator Grants Peer Review Guidelines provides more detail. It is expected and entirely normal that you will have conflicts of interest, but it's important that these are declared early in the process to avoid any unnecessary delays to the process, but also declare them if they're identified further through the process, including when applications are allocated to you for full review. This often occurs when peer reviews dive deeper into their assessments. A conflict of interest exists when there is a divergence between professional responsibilities as a peer reviewer and personal interests. Such conflicts have the potential to lead to bias, advice affecting objectivity and impartiality. By managing any conflict, NHMRC maintains the integrity of its processes in the assessment of scientific and technical merit of the application. Conflict of interest declarations refer to personal and/or professional activities within the past 3 years.

Types of Conflict (5min 40sec)

There are 8 broad situations that NHMRC provides to declare conflicts of interest. These are interests associated with the application or chief investigator regarding collaborations or working relationships and/or professional relationships and associations, such as when a peer reviewer has an actual or perceived vested interest in the research. Social relationships and or interests, teaching or supervisory relationships, direct financial interest in the application and other interests or situations. The details in Appendix B of the Investigator Grants Peer Review Guidelines provide general examples of conflicts and it is designed to assist peer reviewers when declaring conflicts. However, your situation may not neatly fit into these examples but should cover the majority of common situations. These descriptions can be used when providing more detail on the conflict in the comment field. Declarations must include details that substantiate when collaborations occurred. For example, the month and the year. NHMRC will use these details to verify and determine the level of conflict. Remember that a conflict can be real or perceived, so it's important to consider how an interest might be perceived by a third party, such as the applicant or other peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are encouraged to consult their secretariat if they're uncertain about any disclosure of interest matter. When declaring your conflicts of interest, you have 4 options.

Levels of conflict (5min 44sec)

They are: high, low, none and request ruling. In determining if an interest is a high or low or no conflict, the responsibility is on the peer reviewer to consider the specific circumstances of the situation. This includes the interest significance, its impact on the impartiality of the reviewer, and maintaining the integrity of the peer review process. Again, the examples outlined at Appendix B of the Peer Review Guidelines should cover most situations. However, if you are not sure, you may select request ruling, which will allow your NHMRC secretariat to make a ruling based on the details you have provided on the possible conflict. Please note that you will not receive a notification when NHMRC has completed the ruling, so we suggest that you check the Suitability survey for updates. Any peer reviewer who has an interest that is determined by NHMRC to be a high conflict of interest will not participate in the review of that application. Remember, if you identify a conflict once you're assigned an application for full review, please contact your Secretariat as soon as possible so that it can be reassigned to a non-conflicted peer reviewer.

Conflict of interest (6min 59sec)

When requesting a ruling or indicating a high or low conflict of interest, we ask that you provide sufficient detail on the conflict to enable NHMRC to make a ruling or verify the conflict. Important information to include should cover where the conflict exists. Which institution or organisation is related to the conflict? Are you in the same school, same department or faculty within in the institution as the CI related to the conflict? For example, some peer reviewers might say we are at the same university. However, this is not sufficient. What we'd rather like to see a peer review remark, CIA and I worked at X department or school of the Y university. It would even be better to write the CIA and I worked at X department or school of the X university and I've never met them or collaborated with them. What is the nature of the conflict? What are the circumstances that the conflict relates to. Such as being related to Co-authorship of a publication, being members of the same committee, being involved with teaching a course, or even belonging to the same sporting club. For example, you might write I published or co-authored a paper in 2022 with the CIA but had no direct contact with them. When did the conflict exist and for how long? For example, you might write I taught the CIA during their undergraduate study in 1999. When the conflict occurred is important because if it was more than 3 years ago, it is generally considered a low conflict. The only time that no details are required is if there is no conflict. 

Suitability declarations (8min 43sec)

In addition to declaring any conflicts of interest, you also need to declare your suitability to assess the application.

Applications in your Suitability survey have been matched to your peer review information in your Sapphire profile, but some may not closely fit your expertise depending on what the applicant has indicated in the application and your profile data. To ensure you receive applications that best match your expertise, please ensure your Sapphire peer review information in your profile is up to date. We ask that you declare your suitability against all applications assigned to you. This is a very important step to ensure each application is allocated to the best possible reviewer. Remember that you will only be allocated between 10 to 18 applications. Indicating a yes means you are confident you have the expertise to provide an assessment of this application. A moderate means that although not your primary field of expertise, you could provide a fair and unbiased assessment of this application and work broadly within this field and could act as a reviewer for the application. A limited means you have some knowledge in this field of expertise and could assess the application. A no means this application is too far removed from your area of expertise and you do not feel that you could act as a reviewer for this application. Noting that Investigator Grants is largely a track record driven scheme. We expect that the majority of your declarations will either be moderate or yes, with very few being limited or no. Declaring highly suitable for many applications will not increase your workload but rather will allow NHMRC to better match you to applications you are suitable to assess. NHMRC aims to have the most suitable individuals assigned to review the applications and will always try to ensure we give you the minimum number of applications to assess. This year we aim for that to be between 10 to 18 applications. More information about how to make your declarations in Sapphire is provided in the Peer Review Support Pack you have been provided. The support pack has step by step instructions on how to access the required information and download relevant documents. And finally, just some reminders to get started.

Final reminders (11min 1sec)

Please start your declarations early and review the application summaries and information for all applications in your list in Sapphire. The key resources available to assist you are the Peer Review Guidelines, the Peer Review Support Pack and your Secretariat is on hand to help at anytime. Please remember to declare against all applications in your list. We expect that you will declare that most applications are yes or moderate suitability and where you have a low or high conflict or are requesting a ruling. Please ensure you provide detailed information to assist us with making a ruling on the conflict level. Thank you for tuning in and a reminder to please make contact with your relevant secretariat using the GRP inboxes listed here should you have any questions or any concerns regarding your assessments.

Thank you (11min 47sec)

Thank you again on behalf of NHMRC and the applicants for taking part in this round of Investigative grant peer review, and we look forward to working with you.