Neutrality of review processes and discussions

Guideline 16 identifies neutrality of review processes and discussions as an important basis for credibility, fairness and quality in scientific decision‑making processes. It is an indispensable foundation for a fair and transparent evaluation process in science and the humanities – whether in the context of funding decisions, appointment procedures or scientific peer reviews. Only when reviewers, committee members and academic consultants present their views independently, objectively and without undue influence can academia and society have confidence in the outcomes of such processes.

Meaning of the neutrality requirement

The requirement of neutrality demands that reviewers assess solely the scientific quality and relevance of a work, without allowing their own personal, economic or institutional interests to influence the decision. Whether evaluating a manuscript or a funding proposal, conducting an appointment procedure or issuing a statement in the context of scientific policy advice, reviews must be guided exclusively by objective, verifiable scientific criteria such as methodological transparency, reproducibility and originality, and not by personal preferences, rivalries or external expectations. This also upholds the principle of impartiality. Impartiality guards against unsound or discriminatory criteria consciously or unconsciously entering into the review. Such criteria might include personal sympathies or a person’s origin, gender or institutional affiliation.

However, neutrality does not mean that reviewers or consultants are prohibited from having their own substantive and subjective standpoint, since the scientific process depends on critical reflection and evaluation, and it is only in this way that advances can be made in scientific knowledge. Rather, neutrality requires that such substantive evaluations are always based on verifiable scientific arguments and that personal or institutional interests do not override the evaluation process. In the context of scientific policy advice, it is imperative to maintain a clear separation of scientific assessment and political or personal positioning.

Failure to observe the neutrality requirement can have serious consequences for the results of review processes and discussions. One‑sided or substantively biased evaluations undermine the quality of scientific publications, impair the allocation of research funding based on science‑driven decisions and damage trust in scientific expertise.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest

One key element in terms of safeguarding the neutrality requirement is the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. There is a conflict of interest wherever personal relationships, economic interests or institutional ties could influence a reviewer’s judgement – or even merely convey the appearance of such influence. Typical examples include close scientific collaboration with the authors or applicants in the past, direct competition, financial involvement, or work for institutions that could be affected by the review. All circumstances that could even convey the appearance of a possible conflict of interest in relation to the subject of the review must be disclosed without delay by the reviewer or committee member to the competent body.

The obligation to disclose any circumstances that might impede the full observance of the neutrality requirement enables decision‑makers in academic publishers, funding organisations or other commissioning bodies to identify potential conflicts of interest and take appropriate measures to address them. Moreover, the duty of disclosure strengthens the confidence of the research community and the public at large in the fairness and objectivity of the process as a whole. Creating transparency with regard to potential conflicts of interest is also a significant factor in preventing hidden influence and safeguarding the integrity of scientific evaluations.

Research funding

Within the DFG, the Guidelines for Avoiding Conflicts of Interest apply to all individuals involved in the funding process. The ALLEA Code of Conduct likewise refers to the neutrality requirement, namely in Section 2.8. As shown by Tamblyn et al. (2018), conflicts of interest left unaddressed in the review process can give rise to significant distortions in review outcomes.

Journal peer review

The requirements for neutrality and impartiality in peer review for academic journals are equally stringent. Publication ethics guidelines, such as those issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) stipulate that reviewers must judge objectively and declare potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office. For their part, authors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. These principles are also reflected in the editorial policies of leading publishers.

Appointment committees

In appointment committees, too, an objective selection can only be ensured if all parties involved are free from any suspicion of a conflict of interest. When starting their work, members of selection bodies must assess and document whether there are grounds for conflicts of interest and in the event of a conflict withdraw from both discussion and decision‑making.

Scientific policy advice

The Rules for Handling Conflicts of Interest in the Advisory Activity of the Senate Commissions of the DFG apply to the scientific advisory work done by the DFG Senate Commissions.

Scientific misconduct

Failure to disclose circumstances that could give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest in the prescribed manner may constitute a case of scientific misconduct under section 10 of the DFG Rules of Procedure for Dealing with Scientific Misconduct or according to section 21 (7)(c) of the HRK-Mustersatzung zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis und zum Umgang mit Verdachtsfällen wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens (Statutes on Safeguarding Good Research Practice and Dealing with Suspected Cases of Scientific Misconduct).