You are not alone on this aspect

Let's see

Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers.

BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e018467. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018467

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018467

Also, on this reference

Requirements of Clinical Journals for Authors' Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest: A Cross Sectional Study.

PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152301

Jean Mondo Mubalama, for people to be able to respond helpfully to you, could you provide some examples that illustrate why you have problems, please?

Dear Robert Trevethan,

Thanks for your interest. I wanted to know when can we practically say there is conflict or no conflict of interest.

For example, it is rare to get fund from a donor/institution not at all interested in your findings. Also, a researcher company/institution has policies that may not sometimes allow a researcher total freedom. Even at the researcher level, conducting a research has some internal motivations which may affect his/her view on the matter he/she is investigating.

Considering of all these, when or at what extent a researcher should recognise a conflict of interest?

At my point of view, all research should be having a conflict of interest.

Simply put (in my opinion) a conflict of interest has to do with the bias/es a researcher brings to his/her study. In qualitative research for example, graduate students are taught about including a "Cogito" or autobiographical sketch in chapter 3 of their thesis/dissertation, where the methodology is presented. More conflicts of interest may include the fact that a researcher is an employee of the agency/company funding the project. As for donor institutions, these should solicit proposals from all researchers who appear competent and experienced to carry out a study in an unbiased manner and provide an answer to the research question.

I don't think your own thoughts about or personal experiences with a topic amount to a conflict of interest. Instead, I think the key issue is your relationship with any third parties, other than you and your research participants. An example of an unpaid conflict of interest would be if aa agricultural company created an opportunity for you give an honorary lecture. Presumably you would benefit from the recognition and publicity from doing so, even if you were not compensated monetarily.

First up, I've always found the term "conflict of interest" slightly weird because there's not really a conflict (i.e., some kind of disagreement) that's the problem when a conflict of interest is declared, but almost the opposite: conducting and reporting research in a way that is in agreement (not conflict) with influences that are in some way biased.

That aside, in my view, the post above by Bruno Borsari captures the essence of the issue, namely potential for bias - and I think that any possibility of bias - real or suspected - should be clearly indicated in the section of journal articles where conflict of interest is sought. One would hope that researchers, even when they are sponsored by bodies that might have an axe to grind, conduct and report their research in an unbiased fashion, and researchers can make a declaration (hopefully an honest one) that bias has not occurred.

The point made by David Morgan opens up an interesting issue. Sure, one's own thoughts and personal experiences don't refer to a conflict of interest in the conventional sense, even if those thoughts and personal experiences (and even preferences for the nature of research outcomes) might bias the research.

However, the issue is essentially the same: Do researchers sufficiently take into account the possibility that bias might enter into their endeavours, and how do they reassure others that sources of bias have been openly taken into account and declared.

I'm sure there's more to be said about this topic, but I'll round off now by saying that the word "interested" has two meanings in this context. One refers to something healthy such as inquisitiveness. The other refers to an undesirable investment in research outcomes bouncing in a particular, biased, direction.

Of course every research has a potential for bias due to personal beliefs, and it can be wise to mention this in the text of the article. But that has nothing to do with the technical definition of "conflict of interests," which is limited to cases where a relationship with a third party could be a source of bias.

I am fully supported to Professor David L Morgan's answer. I have seen many Articles at the end that they have mentioned the Conflict of Interests. I thought this is the Authors who have submitted the paper should not have any conflicts of allowing the article for further Publications process. This will be normally raised by the publishers or Editors before accepting the article it must be free from all kinds of problems. That's why they are asking copyright form in which the signatures of all authors before Publications.

In my opinion, if your work doesn't clash with any third party then simply put "No Conflict of Interest".

Biswajit Debnath, I don't want to appear disagreeable, but I think you are not approaching the issue from the appropriate direction - something that I attempted to highlight in my post up above. There, I mentioned that conflict seems to be an inappropriate word because the issue isn't about conflict (or clashing, to use your word) but about almost the opposite, namely moving the research in the direction that is desired by an outside party.

In essence, therefore, declaring no conflict of interest is intended to indicate that there was no bias in the research because of an outside party.

It has occurred to me that I could attempt to make another point of clarification. Mention has been made in a couple of posts above about third-party involvement. Unless I'm mistaken, that's not appropriate. Third party involvement refers to a (third) party being brought in when there is a dispute between two other parties. That situation does not pertain in the context of declarations about conflict of interest. There isn't a situation where two parties are in conflict.

With respect to some posts above, though not really relevant to conflict of interest, I'd add that researchers in qualitative studies are often encouraged to indicate how their own biases might influence their research - mainly, I suspect, because qualitative research is prone to being influenced that way. Those of us who are familiar with qualitative research often see evidence of that, particularly if we are familiar with the original information and then how the researchers interpret that information. And, interestingly, in my experience a declaration of the prospect of bias can easily have little effect on bias actually romping away happily for the rest of the research. The declaration of a prospect of bias is, therefore, a deception.

In quantitative research, I can't recall ever seeing researchers make a declaration about their preferences concerning the outcomes - though too often they claim their results are "good" or "strong" or "convincing" when, in fact, those results are ambiguous and mediocre. I'm sure their claims are part of the game played to convince gullible reviewers to recommend that the research should be published.

All up, the main issue is that researchers should conduct their research competently and honestly, devoid of biases that are either external or internal.

I have just found the following article, which, although it was written for a medical context, seems to sum up some of the relevant issues concerning conflict of interest:

Romain, P. L. (2015). Conflicts of interest in research: Looking out for number one means keeping the primary interest front and center. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 8, 122-127.

The reference list contains useful annotations for some of the entries there.

With regard to the several posts that say conflicts of interest can involve only the beliefs or experiences of the researcher, can you give me an example of a published article where that kind of content was included in the Conflict of Interests statement?

This has been an interesting discussion to follow.

However, it seems that the term "conflict of interest" itself is ambiguous, leading to several interpretations.

A point of agreement is in its technical use as most the contributors highlighted: "relationship with any third party which might bias the study conclusion".

Most of contributors agreed also on the necessity of conducting research competently and honestly to avoid internal or external biases. And in case of qualitative research, investigator beliefs must be stated in the text in case they might influence his views.

Further reading materials were also provided.

Thanks to Sunny Chi Lik Au, Robert Trevethan, Bruno Borsari, David L Morgan, M. Senapathy, Biswajit Debnath, Swaminathan Chitraputhira Pillai for your interest in my concern.

I learnt a lot from you. Stay safe.

Jean Mondo Mubalama, thanks for your summary. Given your original question, I googled "Elsevier conflict of interest" and was surprised to see that mention is made there of personal beliefs constituting possible conflict of interest. Here is part of the wording in the document that Elsevier asks authors to sign if they declare no conflict of interest:

The authors whose names are listed immediately below certify that they have NO . . . non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Because of these words, it is obvious (and I confess to being surprised) that Elsevier does include personal beliefs when conflict of interest is at stake. And that goes back to your original concerns, Jean.

I am sure that many researchers do have personal beliefs about the "subject matter or materials" in their research, so I suspect that the Elsevier declaration would be difficult for many people to sign off on if it is taken to its extreme. However, I think we need to be "sensible" under the circumstances and return to the notion that bias should be avoided and researchers should be able to indicate, as honestly as they possibly can, that their conduct and reporting of research are free of bias - whether or not the outcomes of their research suited their own personal notions and beliefs.

Oh, and I'm sure that use of the term "third party" is a bit off beam in this context. But I'm willing to be corrected about that . . .

Conflict of interest deals with the positive and negative factors according to the work plan that needs to be done. So that conflict of interest will be avoided, they need to discuss something that between the two can be agreeable on the subject matter. In the end, conflict of interest will contribute dishonesty and unhuman characters - disrespect.

Sometimes a conflict of interest is evident in the way the research is conducted. An example of this is when looking at the efficacy of pure vitamin C and the immune function, viruses, or sepsis. When either low dosages are given (unless the population is highly deficient in vitamin C from lack of vitamin C in diet) or dextrose is added to the solution (interferes with the cells uptake of vitamin C as glucose is absorbed quicker) it is an intentional skewing of data.

Sometimes the recommendations show a conflict of interest when the results show a concern for caution. Examples of this are often seen in pharmaceutical medicines whereby the many side effects are mentioned and then the product is still recommended without hesitation.

When including the purpose of the research conducted it can clarify the position from which the research was conducted. People generally look for that which supports their own perspective. This would not be listed under conflict of interest, but under method and in the purpose statement.

If the first example, was done for looking at the lowest dosage of vitamin C which would be beneficial for someone with a cold concerning recovery time in comparison with the control group, it would exclude an intentional conflict of interest in trying to skew the results to show a lack of efficacy in vitamin C treatments, as the purpose of the study was to determine the minimum dosage of vitamin C which was beneficial.

All funding should be listed, as it could be seen as a potential conflict of interest. The purpose of listing conflicts of interest is to be above reproach. What are potential areas which your opposition (those who disagree with you) would wish to attack (to try and discredit your work)?

Can you defend why that is not a conflict of interest, but potentially rather a strength for conducting your research? How does it give you greater insight? How is your belief system motivating you for uncovering the truth?

Does the current evidence support your claim? An example of this is how microbiota in the gut/intestines influences brain disorders. Research over the last decade is pointing in this direction (although more research should & needs to be conducted). For someone wishing to uncover more in a given area their motivation is often free from a conflict of interest. However, their desire to further science could blind them from asking critical questions. In this type of situation only time would tell whether the author overlooked something (even when the data was not available in the time period for which the article was written).

David L Morgan, excellent point. I think in social research, I would include an author's biography or possible 'conflict of interest' regarding positionality in the methods section of an article or the ethical considerations of a proposal to IRB, but I would agree that I would not call it a Conflict of Interest with capital letters per se.

But, if we do as Thomas E. Keefe proposes, then my question would be what do we understand by "biography"...

I certainly have seen articles that include statements about personal background and positionality in their methods sections. In my experience, this is most common in research that uses qualitative methods.

Like David Morgan, I have seen statements about personal background and positionality in the method section of (a very small number of) qualitative articles. I have seen those statements much more frequently in theses and dissertations.

However, I think that those kinds of statements (about personal background and positionality) are not what Jean Mondo Mubalama was referring to when he asked his original question or what publishing houses such as Elsevier are referring to when they mention conflict of interest. I could be wrong, but I think the target in those cases is the set of statements at the end of many journal articles.

Robert Trevethan I agree that the original issue was almost certainly the formal statements that many journals now require, and which appear at the end of the article. Like yourself, I was surprised to hear that Elsevier considers "knowledge or beliefs" as possible sources for a conflict of interest, and I have no idea what standard they would use to assess that.

I think the following article points toward critical issues regarding academic bias and conflict of interest.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783432/

Article Bias in the research literature and conflict of interest: An...