Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen

What is the title of your thesis?

Conflicts of interest in peer review of biomedical research.

At which department and/or research unit did you complete your PhD?

Cochrane Denmark and the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Department of Clinical Research.

Who was your principal supervisor?

Associate Professor Andreas Lundh, Department of Clinical Research.

What question did you aim to answer with your thesis?

The overall aim of this dissertation was to investigate conflicts of interest in the peer review of biomedical research. This was examined through four studies.

What did you find?

Most research on conflicts of interest in peer review has focused on the processes used by biomedical journals; few, if any, studies have examined other areas of biomedical research, and very little is known about how reviewers' conflicts of interest influence their assessments.

Although most journals have a publicly available policy, reviewers' conflicts of interest are managed inconsistently and superficially in biomedical publishing. There is limited transparency regarding both the process and reviewers' interests, and many journals lack systems for managing such conflicts.

How did you do it?

In the first study, we conducted a scoping review to map the empirical research on conflicts of interest in the peer review of manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, conference abstracts, master's theses and PhD theses, research grant applications, and clinical guidelines.

The second study was a cross-sectional study of randomly selected conflict of interest policies for peer reviewers and editors at medical journals.

In the final two studies, we investigated how peer reviewers' conflicts of interest are managed in practice through a survey of journals, primarily editors, and semi-structured interviews with editors and researchers to explore their perspectives on conflicts of interest in the peer review process.

How can your research be applied (in the clinic, society, etc.)?

The findings have implications for medical publishers, journals, and editors, highlighting the need to prioritise comprehensive conflict of interest policies, provide clear guidance for editors and peer reviewers, and improve transparency regarding conflicts of interest throughout the peer review process.

In addition, the research provides a foundation for future studies of editorial practice, including the influence of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest on reviewers' assessments and editorial decision-making.