Why are there different COI rules for grant reviews and technical evaluations of R&D contract proposals?
Technical evaluations of R&D contract proposals are subject to federal rules for acquisitions that do not apply to grant reviews.
Do the policies only apply to those participating in initial peer review or technical evaluation?
Yes. Members of NIH National Advisory Councils or Boards, who participate in the second level of peer review, fall under the ethics rules [http://ofacp.od.nih.gov/ethics/index.asp] associated with Special Government Employees.
Can federal staff serve as reviewers?
Yes, certain Federal staff may serve as reviewers. Federal employees serving as reviewers in NIH peer review also must comply with the ethics rules of their office or agency.
Who is responsible for identifying and declaring conflicts of interest in peer review?
Reviewers are responsible for declaring COI, and SROs are responsible for explaining the rules to their reviewers and screening for COI to the extent possible.Unlike members of NIH Advisory Councils or Boards, reviewers in the initial level of NIH peer review are not appointed as Special Government Employees and do not submit financial disclosure forms. Therefore, SROs are not in the position to collect financial information from reviewers, but can ask about professional relationships and roles and make determinations about potential bias in the initial peer review process.
What is the cutoff on the number of authors that make a publication “multi-authored”?
The NIH policy does not specify a specific number of authors that renders a publication “multi-authored”. Of greater significance are the roles that the authors played in the research that is reported in the publication. The SRO must also be aware of the appearance of a conflict of interest.