Abstracts, scholarly programmes and accreditation coordination
Managing conflicts of interest in abstract review
A reviewer has just realised the abstract in front of them comes from a colleague, and the secretariat has no agreed way to handle it.
Opens WhatsApp with a draft you can edit before sending. Nothing is sent automatically.
The short answer
The secretariat collects declarations, records them and routes them. The committee chair, under the committee's own policy, decides whether a reviewer steps aside.
Set the declaration step up before abstracts are assigned, so that a conflict is found early and never after scores exist.
Who does what
| Step | Secretariat | Scientific committee chair |
|---|---|---|
| Policy | Asks for the written policy and quotes it unchanged | Owns the definition of a conflict and the consequences |
| Declaration | Issues the form, sets the date, keeps the register | Reads declarations that need judgement |
| Assignment | Applies the chair's exclusions to the assignment list | Decides who is excluded and who replaces them |
| After scoring | Reports any late declaration immediately | Decides whether affected scores stand |
| Chair or committee member is an author | Routes the abstract to the deputy or named alternate | Names the alternate in advance |
A workable sequence
- Ask the committee whether it has a written conflict policy. If not, the chair needs to approve one before review opens.
- Send each reviewer a declaration form that lists the abstract identifiers they might receive, or a general statement to be reconfirmed per abstract.
- Keep the register in one controlled place with access limited to the secretariat and the chair.
- Prepare assignments, apply the chair's exclusions, and send the final list to the chair for confirmation.
- State on the reviewer form that a conflict discovered later must be reported to the secretariat at once, and agree the route for that with the chair.
Edge cases to settle with the chair first
- The chair or a committee member submits an abstract.
- A reviewer works at the same institution as the author but in a different department.
- Anonymised review where the reviewer recognises the author from the content.
- A sponsor-funded study where the committee wants funding sources declared.
- A secretariat staff member knows an author personally.
Worked example · Fictional example
A late conflict found after assignment
Fictional organisation and figures, for illustration only.
At a fictional paediatrics forum, a reviewer tells the secretariat on day three that abstract 47 was written by her former supervisor. Scores for that abstract are not yet submitted.
The secretariat does not judge whether this counts as a conflict. It logs the report, informs the chair the same day, and applies the chair's instruction to reassign the abstract to the named alternate. The register shows who reported, when, and who decided.
Use this yourself
Conflict declaration register
Keep this table with restricted access. The decision column is completed only by the chair.
- Record the declaration before scores exist whenever possible.
- Write the facts the reviewer reported, in their words, without interpretation.
- Leave the decision column blank until the chair responds.
| Abstract ID | Reviewer | Declared relationship | Date reported | Chair decision | Replacement reviewer | Date actioned |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Open the tool: Conference materials and translation-version checker
Handle it in-house, or bring in help?
Your team can usually handle this when
- The committee has a written policy and a small, well-known reviewer pool.
- The submission system supports conflict flags and the chair checks them.
Outside planning help earns its fee when
- Reviewers come from many institutions and the register has to be kept consistent across rounds.
- No written policy exists and the committee wants help turning its own decisions into a one-page process, which it then approves.
Want the declaration process set up?
A conference project lead can prepare the declaration form, keep the register, apply the chair's exclusions to assignment lists and chase late declarations. The policy, the judgement on each case and the replacement reviewers stay with your scientific committee.
Questions organisers ask
Can the secretariat decide that a conflict is minor?
No. Record it and send it to the chair. Whether a relationship matters is a judgement for the committee under its own policy.
What if there is no conflict policy?
Ask the chair to approve one before review opens. The secretariat can supply a blank structure to fill in, but the content is the committee's.
Where should the register be stored?
In one controlled location with access limited to the secretariat and the chair. Ask your organisation how declarations that name individuals should be handled and retained.
Related resources
Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.