# The disclosure of potential conflicts of interest among editors and members of editorial boards in leading ethics journals

## TL;DR

This study finds that editors and editorial board members of ethics journals often fail to properly disclose potential conflicts of interest, which could affect the fairness of peer review.

## Contribution

The study reveals a lack of standardized and transparent conflict of interest disclosures among editors and editorial board members in ethics journals.

## Key findings

- Only 2% of journals disclosed potential COIs for their editors.
- None of the journals used a structured reporting approach like the ICMJE disclosure form.
- There was significant variability in how journals guided COI reporting by editorial members.

## Abstract

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) defines a potential conflict of interest (COI) as a situation where professional judgment could be influenced by secondary interests. Competing interests can introduce bias into the peer-review process, making it essential for all participants to declare any potential COIs. While authors are currently required to disclose their COIs, editors and editorial board members are not held to the same standard. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which editors and editorial board members of ethics journals report their potential competing interests.

From October 23 to November 1, 2024, 82 ethics journals selected based on their impact factors were assessed, focusing on the disclosure of potential COIs by editors and editorial board members. Journal websites were examined to determine how editors and board members disclose potential COIs. Additionally, publisher websites were assessed for policies guiding these individuals in reporting COIs during peer review.

Only 2% of the journals disclosed potential COIs for their editors, and 13% provided biographical information about editorial members. None of the journals employed a structured reporting approach, such as the ICMJE disclosure form, despite most claiming adherence to ICMJE and COPE guidelines. There was considerable variability in how journals and publishers guided their editors and board members in reporting their own COIs.

The findings indicate that disclosures of potential COIs by editors and editorial board members in leading ethics journals are often inconsistent and insufficient. Increasing transparency in this area could lead to a fairer and more trustworthy peer-review process.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41073-025-00181-z.