Cited by 40Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareAcademic integrity and plagiarismResearch, Science, and Academia

Institutional Conflicts of Interest in Academic Research

Open access
Resnik, David B.·2019·Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract

Financial relationships in academic research can create institutional conflicts of interest (COIs) because the financial interests of the institution or institutional officials may inappropriately influence decision-making. Strategies for dealing with institutional COIs include establishing institutional COI committees that involve the board of trustees in conflict review and management, developing policies that shield institutional decisions from inappropriate influences, and establishing private foundations that are independent of the institution to own stock and intellectual property and to provide capital to start-up companies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11948-015-9702-9

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Financial conflicts of interest affect not only individual researchers but also academic institutions and institutional leaders.

    “However, financial CoIs do not only affect individual researchers, but also academic institutions and institutional leaders [286][287][288][289] , and current policies tend to regulate even small benefits to individual researchers (e.g., free meals), while often failing to address appropriately the effects of large amount of funding for institutions 289,290 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Resnik, D. B.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Resnik, David B.
Venue
Science and Engineering Ethics
Published
2015-10-07
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
1661-1669
ISSN
  • 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5546
OpenAlex
W1878724595
Cited by
40
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science and Engineering Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ZIAES102646)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
academic research, financial relations, board of trustees, institutional decision-making, private foundations, intellectual property, startups, research ethics
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Organizations, Research Support as Topic, Universities, Conflict of Interest, Ethics Committees, Ethics, Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review