Competing Interest

Last Updated: October 2026

This policy is part of ETFLIN's Editorial Policies.

Introduction and Scope

ETFLIN is committed to maintaining the integrity, impartiality, and transparency of the scholarly record. Competing interests, also referred to as conflicts of interest, may arise when financial, professional, personal, institutional, intellectual, or other relationships could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, professional judgment concerning research, peer review, editorial decisions, or publication.

The existence of a competing interest does not necessarily indicate misconduct or invalidate research findings. However, undisclosed or inadequately managed interests can undermine confidence in the research and publication process. Transparent disclosure allows the journal, reviewers, and readers to assess the relevance of such interests and supports appropriate editorial safeguards.

This policy applies to all participants in ETFLIN's publication process, including authors, corresponding authors, peer reviewers, editors, editorial board members, guest editors, editorial staff, and other individuals involved in manuscript assessment or publication decisions. It also addresses relevant interests involving the publisher, journal operations, and external sponsors or partners.

All participants are responsible for identifying and disclosing relevant competing interests in accordance with their respective roles. Disclosure does not automatically disqualify an individual from participating in the publication process, provided that the interest can be appropriately assessed and managed.

Definition and Scope of Disclosure

A competing interest exists when a relationship, activity, commitment, or other interest could reasonably be expected to influence, or be perceived to influence, a person's professional judgment or impartiality in relation to a manuscript or publication decision.

Competing interests may be direct or indirect, current or historical, financial or non-financial. Their relevance depends on the nature of the relationship, its connection to the subject matter, its potential effect on professional judgment, and the circumstances in which the individual participates in the publication process.

ETFLIN requires disclosure of relevant relationships and activities covering at least the 36 months preceding manuscript submission. This period is a minimum disclosure review window and does not exclude interests originating earlier when they remain active, have an ongoing financial or professional consequence, or are otherwise materially relevant to the work.

Participants must also disclose relevant interests that arise or change during editorial assessment, peer review, revision, acceptance, or production. A previously submitted declaration must be updated when material circumstances change.

The responsibility to disclose rests with the individual concerned. When uncertainty exists regarding whether a relationship or activity is relevant, the individual should disclose it to the responsible editor or editorial office for assessment rather than unilaterally assuming that it is immaterial.

Disclosure requirements must be applied proportionately. ETFLIN seeks information relevant to research integrity and editorial impartiality rather than unrelated personal details.

Categories of Competing Interests

Competing interests may take various forms and are not limited to the examples below. The relevance of each interest must be assessed in the context of the manuscript and the individual's role in its evaluation.

Financial interests. These include employment, commercial consultancy, advisory fees, honoraria, speaking fees, paid expert testimony, stock or share ownership, stock options, royalties, patent income, licensing revenue, research grants, personal remuneration, travel support, gifts, and other financial benefits from organizations that may have an interest in the work. Financial interests may also include indirect benefits or relevant financial interests held through an institution or organization.

Funding and material support. Relevant interests may arise from direct research funding, salary support, provision of equipment, reagents, software, research materials, or other in-kind contributions. The identity of the supporting organization and its role in the research must be disclosed where applicable. Funding must also be reported separately in the appropriate funding statement.

Professional and institutional interests. These may include employment, leadership positions, advisory appointments, board membership, institutional financial interests, relevant administrative responsibilities, and professional relationships that could influence the assessment of a manuscript. An individual's institutional affiliation alone does not necessarily establish a competing interest, but overlapping institutional responsibilities or direct interests in a research outcome may require disclosure or recusal.

Personal relationships. Close personal relationships, family relationships, professional rivalries, disputes, or other circumstances may constitute competing interests when they could reasonably compromise impartiality. Disclosure should be limited to information necessary to assess the potential conflict.

Academic and intellectual interests. These may include close collaboration, recent co-authorship, supervisory relationships, direct academic competition, intellectual commitments, or strongly held positions that are directly relevant to the subject matter and could reasonably affect the assessment of the work. Political, ideological, or other personal beliefs are not automatically disclosable solely because they exist; they become relevant when there is a substantive connection to the manuscript or a reasonable concern regarding impartiality.

Legal and intellectual property interests. These include patents, pending patent applications, copyrights, licensing arrangements, proprietary technologies, commercial development rights, legal disputes, or other intellectual property interests that could be affected by publication. Relevant advisory or expert roles involving regulatory, governmental, professional, or commercial decisions should also be disclosed when they materially relate to the research.

Other interests. Any relationship, activity, or commitment not covered above must be disclosed when it could reasonably be expected to influence professional judgment or be perceived as materially affecting the independence of research, peer review, or editorial decision-making.

The categories listed in this section are illustrative rather than exhaustive. The absence of a specific interest from the list does not remove the obligation to disclose it when it is relevant.

Author Responsibilities and Disclosure Protocols

All authors must disclose relevant competing interests at manuscript submission through ETFLIN's online submission system or another method specified by the editorial office.

Each author is responsible for providing accurate and complete information regarding their own relevant financial and non-financial interests. The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating the collection of declarations, ensuring that all co-authors have been consulted, and confirming that the submitted information is complete and consistent with the statements included in the manuscript.

The corresponding author must not assume that a declaration from one author automatically covers the interests of the remaining authors. Relevant relationships must be disclosed for each author individually, even when the authors share an institutional affiliation, funding source, or research project.

Authors must update their declarations when a material competing interest arises or when previously reported information changes during the editorial process. ETFLIN may request clarification, supporting documentation, or confirmation from individual authors when a declaration is incomplete, inconsistent, or requires further assessment.

The absence of a competing interest must also be explicitly declared. Where applicable, the article should include a statement such as, "The authors declare no competing interests relevant to this work." Authors must not use a no-conflict declaration as a substitute for reporting relevant funding or financial support.

If an author has a competing interest, the disclosure should identify the nature of the relationship and the relevant organization or party with sufficient clarity for an informed assessment. The editorial team may request more detail when necessary to determine whether the interest can be adequately managed.

Failure to disclose relevant interests, the submission of misleading declarations, or the refusal to provide requested clarification may result in additional editorial assessment, a request for revision, suspension of processing, or rejection, depending on the circumstances.

Funding Disclosure and Sponsor Involvement

Funding disclosure and competing-interest disclosure serve related but distinct purposes. Funding statements identify the financial or material support provided for the research, while competing-interest statements identify relationships or interests that may influence, or be perceived to influence, professional judgment.

Authors must identify relevant sources of financial and material support, including the names of funding organizations and grant or award identifiers where applicable. They must also disclose the role of each relevant sponsor in the design of the study, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of findings, preparation of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the work for publication.

Authors must disclose whether a sponsor had access to the study data, whether the authors had full or restricted access to the underlying data, and whether any contractual or other restrictions affected the authors' ability to analyze, interpret, report, or publish the findings independently.

Where a sponsor had no involvement in a particular aspect of the research, this should be stated clearly rather than left ambiguous. If several sponsors supported different aspects of the work, their respective roles should be described as accurately as practicable.

The existence of funding from a commercial organization does not automatically invalidate a study or require rejection. The relevant consideration is whether the relationship has been transparently disclosed and whether the research and editorial process remain sufficiently independent.

ETFLIN may request supporting documentation or clarification when a sponsorship arrangement creates uncertainty regarding data access, analytical independence, or publication rights.

Authors must not enter into or rely on arrangements that prevent the journal from receiving an accurate account of the research or that conceal material restrictions affecting scientific reporting. Questions regarding research funding should also be considered alongside ETFLIN's Authorship Policy and relevant research integrity requirements.

Competing Interests Among Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers must disclose relevant competing interests when invited to evaluate a manuscript. They should assess whether their financial, professional, personal, intellectual, or institutional relationships could compromise their ability to provide an impartial and independent assessment.

A reviewer must decline the assignment or promptly inform the responsible editor when a competing interest may prevent an objective evaluation. If a relevant interest becomes apparent after the review has begun, the reviewer must notify the editor immediately and refrain from further evaluation until the editor determines the appropriate course of action.

Relevant circumstances include, but are not limited to, current or recent collaboration with an author, co-authorship, a supervisory or mentor–mentee relationship, direct academic competition, close personal or professional relationships, financial interests in the research outcome, and institutional connections that could compromise impartiality.

Under ETFLIN's Peer-review Policy, reviewers must not share institutional affiliations with the authors or with fellow reviewers. The policy's applicable affiliation restrictions remain in force independently of the assessment of other competing interests.

For the purposes of competing-interest assessment, prior or ongoing co-authorship with a member of the research team within the preceding three years constitutes a conflict requiring the reviewer to decline the assignment. Past or present mentor–mentee relationships and other material relationships may similarly require recusal. Other circumstances must be assessed according to their relevance to the manuscript and the risk to impartiality.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal, financial, professional, or competitive advantage. They must protect the confidentiality of manuscript content and related editorial communications.

When a reviewer is disqualified or withdraws because of a competing interest, the responsible editor should seek an appropriate alternative reviewer. The manuscript must continue through the applicable peer-review process without lowering the journal's standards.

Competing Interests Among Editors and Editorial Staff

Editors, editorial board members, guest editors, and editorial staff participating in manuscript assessment must disclose relevant competing interests and recuse themselves from decisions where impartiality may reasonably be compromised.

An editor must not make or influence an editorial decision on a manuscript when the editor has a material financial interest, relevant personal relationship, recent close collaboration, direct academic competition, or another relationship that could reasonably affect the independence of the decision.

When a competing interest is identified, editorial responsibility must be transferred to an appropriately qualified independent editor who can assess the manuscript without the identified conflict. The recused individual must not select or instruct reviewers, access confidential reviewer information for the purpose of influencing the decision, or otherwise participate in the evaluation of the affected manuscript.

Editorial staff who become aware of a relevant conflict must notify the responsible editor and refrain from tasks that could compromise the handling of the manuscript. Staff must not use confidential submission or review information for personal or professional benefit.

Editors and other individuals who participate in editorial decisions should keep their relevant declarations current with the journal and update them when material circumstances change. ETFLIN may request periodic confirmation of these declarations and may publish relevant transparency information where appropriate.

The existence of a disclosed conflict does not necessarily require permanent exclusion from all editorial duties. Restrictions should be proportionate to the relationship and its relevance, while any manuscript-specific recusal must be implemented whenever impartiality cannot reasonably be maintained.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors, Editorial Board Members, and Staff

ETFLIN recognizes that editors, editorial board members, and internal staff may submit manuscripts for consideration. Such submissions require special safeguards to preserve editorial independence and public confidence in the evaluation process.

A manuscript submitted by an individual involved in editorial decision-making must be handled through a separate editorial pathway under the responsibility of an independent editor who has no relevant competing interest and is not affiliated with the submitting author's institution.

The submitting individual must have no role in selecting reviewers, accessing confidential reviewer identities or reports for their own submission, directing editorial communications, or participating in the decision-making process. Access to the manuscript management system and related confidential information must be restricted as necessary to prevent inappropriate involvement.

The independent editor is responsible for overseeing the initial assessment, selecting appropriate reviewers, evaluating the resulting reports, managing revisions, and reaching or recommending the editorial decision under the journal's usual procedures. The same applicable peer-review standards, ethical requirements, and publication criteria must be applied as for other submissions.

The arrangement must preserve the journal's applicable double-blind peer-review protocol to the extent supported by the established workflow. Any necessary administrative access must not confer editorial influence on the submitting individual.

Where the designated editor is unable to handle the manuscript independently, the manuscript must be reassigned to another qualified individual without the relevant conflict. Any concern regarding interference or inappropriate access must be referred to the publisher or an appropriate independent authority within the journal's governance structure.

Competing Interests Involving the Publisher, Journal, or External Partners

ETFLIN recognizes that competing interests may arise at the journal or publisher level, not only at the level of individual authors, reviewers, and editors.

Commercial partnerships, sponsorships, advertising arrangements, institutional relationships, special issues, editorial appointments, or other business interests must not determine the scientific assessment of a manuscript. The publisher must maintain appropriate separation between commercial or administrative interests and editorial decisions.

When a journal-level or publisher-level interest could reasonably affect the handling of a particular manuscript, the publisher must take appropriate steps to protect the independence of the assessment. Depending on the circumstances, this may include assigning an independent editor, obtaining additional independent review, or documenting the safeguards implemented.

Guest editors and external partners involved in special issues or other publication initiatives must comply with the same competing-interest and recusal requirements applicable to other editorial participants. Commercial or financial arrangements must not be used to influence reviewer selection, suppress unfavorable findings, secure acceptance, or bypass established editorial requirements.

ETFLIN will assess such circumstances individually and apply safeguards proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the potential conflict.

Management of Disclosed Competing Interests

Disclosure is the first step in managing a competing interest; it is not, by itself, a determination that the research is unreliable or that the individual must be excluded.

Upon receiving a declaration, the responsible editor or editorial office will assess its relevance to the manuscript and the individual's role in the publication process. Depending on the circumstances, an appropriate response may include recording the disclosure, requesting clarification, ensuring that a transparent statement is published, assigning an independent editor, replacing a conflicted reviewer, or imposing other measures needed to protect impartiality.

Where a conflict can be managed through disclosure and appropriate safeguards, the manuscript may proceed through the normal editorial process. Where the conflict cannot be adequately managed, the editor may decline the individual's participation or take other appropriate action under the journal's procedures.

Editorial decisions must be based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, validity of the findings, ethical compliance, and the adequacy of the evidence presented. The presence of a disclosed competing interest must not automatically determine acceptance or rejection.

The management of competing interests must remain consistent with ETFLIN's Peer-review Policy and Publication Ethics Policy.

Disclosure Statements in Published Articles

ETFLIN requires a competing-interest statement for every published article. The statement must accurately reflect the declarations reviewed during the editorial process and distinguish competing interests from funding information where necessary.

If no competing interests are declared, the article may use the statement:

"The authors declare no competing interests relevant to this work."

Where one or more authors have relevant interests, the statement should identify the nature of those interests and the individuals concerned in language that permits readers to understand the relationship. For example:

"Author A has received consultancy fees from Company X. Author B holds a patent relevant to the technology discussed in this article."

Where appropriate, the statement should also clarify the sponsor's role in the research. For example:

"The study was funded by Organization Y. The funder had no role in data collection, data analysis, interpretation of the findings, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication."

These examples are illustrative and must not be used unless they accurately reflect the circumstances of the study.

A statement indicating that no competing interests exist does not remove the requirement to disclose research funding, material support, or other information required by the journal. Similarly, the disclosure of funding alone may not adequately describe a separate financial or professional relationship that could affect the work.

The final statement will be published with the article in accordance with ETFLIN's publication workflow. The journal may request a revised statement before publication when the existing declaration is incomplete or ambiguous.

Confidentiality and Protection of Disclosure Information

Disclosure information will be handled according to the requirements of the editorial process, applicable privacy obligations, and ETFLIN's Privacy Policy.

Detailed declarations and supporting documentation may be used by authorized editorial personnel to assess potential conflicts. Access should be restricted to individuals who require the information for editorial, compliance, or integrity-related purposes.

The publication of a competing-interest statement does not require disclosure of unnecessary personal information, confidential contractual details, or information unrelated to the assessment of the manuscript. Where supporting evidence contains sensitive information, authors and other participants should provide only the material reasonably necessary for the journal to evaluate the concern.

Confidentiality does not prevent ETFLIN from making appropriate disclosures to relevant institutions, authorities, or other competent parties when required to investigate suspected misconduct, protect the integrity of the scholarly record, or comply with applicable obligations.

Undisclosed Interests and Editorial Investigation

If ETFLIN becomes aware of a potentially undisclosed or inaccurately declared competing interest, the journal may initiate an assessment before or after publication.

The editorial office may request clarification from the individuals concerned, review relevant documentation, assess the possible influence of the interest on the research or editorial process, and consult other appropriate sources where necessary.

Before reaching a conclusion, ETFLIN will ordinarily provide the relevant parties with an opportunity to respond to material concerns, subject to applicable confidentiality, legal, and investigative requirements. Where the matter raises questions requiring institutional investigation, the journal may contact the relevant institution, ethics committee, funder, or other competent authority.

The response will depend on the nature of the undisclosed interest, the extent of the omission, whether the information materially affected the evaluation or interpretation of the research, the cooperation of the parties, and the reliability of the available evidence.

Possible actions include requesting a corrected disclosure statement, suspending editorial processing pending clarification, rejecting a manuscript, reassigning an editor or reviewer, issuing a correction, publishing an expression of concern, or retracting an article when justified by the seriousness of the issue and the applicable publication ethics standards.

Institutional notification or other administrative action may be considered when appropriate. Restrictions on future submissions or other publishing privileges will be considered only where justified by the evidence, proportionate to the circumstances, and consistent with the journal's established procedures.

A competing-interest issue does not automatically require retraction. Retraction or another formal post-publication action must be assessed in relation to the reliability of the published record and the significance of the undisclosed interest.

Post-publication actions must be handled consistently with ETFLIN's Correction, Withdrawal, and Retraction Policy and Publication Ethics Policy.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors or other affected parties may submit a reasoned appeal concerning a competing-interest determination or an associated editorial action. Appeals must include a clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration and any relevant supporting information.

Appeals should be submitted to legal@etflin.com, addressed to the Integrity Officer. Where practicable, an appeal should be assessed by an individual who was not directly responsible for the original determination and who has no relevant competing interest.

The appeal process may examine whether the applicable policy was correctly interpreted, whether relevant evidence was adequately considered, and whether the resulting action was proportionate to the circumstances. An appeal does not automatically suspend an editorial decision or guarantee a different outcome.

The decision following the appeal will be communicated to the relevant parties, subject to confidentiality requirements. Concerns involving the independence of the person responsible for handling an appeal should be directed to the editorial office for appropriate reassignment.

Relationship with Other Editorial Policies

This policy should be read together with ETFLIN's Authorship Policy, Peer-review Policy, Publication Ethics Policy, Ethics and Consent Policy, Use of Artificial Intelligence Policy, and Correction, Withdrawal, and Retraction Policy.

Each policy addresses a related but distinct aspect of ethical publishing. Authorship eligibility and contributor recognition remain governed by the Authorship Policy; the selection and recusal of reviewers and editors remain subject to the Peer-review Policy; and ethical investigations and post-publication actions are handled under the applicable publication ethics procedures.

Where a competing interest concerns the use of artificial intelligence, research ethics, authorship, funding, or data integrity, the relevant policy requirements apply in addition to the disclosure obligations established here.

In the event of an apparent conflict between a requested action and the requirements necessary to preserve editorial independence, research integrity, or participant protection, the applicable ethical and editorial requirements take precedence.

Policy Review and Contact

ETFLIN will periodically review this policy to maintain consistency with relevant publication ethics guidance, changes in editorial practice, and the journal's disclosure procedures.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants are responsible for consulting the current version of the policy and providing accurate information when requested.

Questions regarding the interpretation or implementation of this policy may be directed to halo@etflin.com. Matters involving formal appeals should be submitted through the procedure described above.