Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality for Reviewers, Access Committee and Prioritization Panel Members
1. Potential Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers, Access Committee and Prioritization Panel Members considering proposals submitted to a Call for PRACE resources should be aware of potential conflict situations that may arise. Examples of potentially biasing affiliations or relationships are:
a) AFFILIATION WITH AN APPLICANT INSTITUTION: if the Reviewer/Access Committee/Panel Member
- has been employed within the last 12 months, is currently employed, or is being considered for employment by the institution, or has received any payment for services/honorarium from the institution within the last 12 months, unless this relationship is with a part of the institution that clearly has no connection with that from which the proposal originates;
- holds any current office, advisory committee or governing board membership, whether paid or unpaid, which relates to that part ofthe institution from which the proposal originates.
b) RELATIONSHIP WITH A PERSON INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSAL: if the Reviewer/Access Committee/Panel Member has a
- family relationship as spouse, child, sibling, or parent;
- business, or professional partnership;
- past or present association as thesis advisor, or thesis student;
- collaboration on a project or on a book, article, report, paper, or conference proceedings within the last 48 months;
c) APPLICANT TO THE SAME CALL FOR PROPOSALS: if the Reviewer/Access Committee/Panel Member is
- named as an applicant, either as Principal Investigator or as a Co‐Investigator, on a proposal submitted to the Call.
d) OTHER AFFILIATIONS OR RELATIONSHIPS
- Interests as listed above of the following persons should be treated as if they were those of the Reviewer/Access Committee/Panel Member: spouse, legal partner, child, or other close relative.
- Any other relationship, such as close personal friendship, that might tend to affect their judgment, or be seen as doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship.
Should any potential conflict arise, the individual concerned must bring the matter to the attention of the PRACE official who asked them to serve as a Reviewer or Prioritization Panel Member, the Chairman of the Access Committee, or the Chairman of the Scientific Steering Committee (if the conflict involves the latter). This official or chairman will determine how the matter should be handled.
2. No Use of “Insider” Information
If the peer‐review work gives a Reviewer, Access Committee or Prioritization Panel Member access to information not generally available to the public, they must not use that information for personal benefit or make it available for the personal benefit of any other individual or organization. This is to be distinguished from the entirely appropriate general benefit of learning more about PRACE, learning from other panel members, or becoming better acquainted with the state of a given discipline.
3. Confidentiality of Proposals and Applicants
PRACE receives proposals in confidence and protects the confidentialityof their contents. For this reason, Reviewers, Access Committee and Prioritization Panel Members must not copy, quote, or otherwise use or disclose to anyone, including their graduate students or post-doctoral or research associates, any material from any proposal they are asked to review. If they believe a colleague can make a substantial contribution to the review, permission must be obtained from the PRACE officer, or Access Committee Chairman, before disclosing either the contents of the proposal or the name of any applicant.
4. Confidentiality of the Review Process and Reviewer Names
PRACE keeps reviews and the identities of Reviewers and Prioritization Panel Members confidential to the maximum extent possible, except that Principal Investigators are sent reviews of their own proposals without the Reviewers’ names, affiliations, or other identifying information. Reviewers, Access Committee and Prioritization Panel Members must respect the confidentiality of all applicants, and of other Reviewers and Prioritization Panel Members. They must not disclose their identities, the relative assessments or rankings of proposals by a Prioritization Panel, or other details about the peer review of proposals.