Navigating Challenges and Future Directions for Conflict of Interest Disclosure Among Iranian Authors in international Journals

Introduction:

This study explores reviewers’ perspectives on conflict of interest (COI) disclosures by Iranian authors submitting to international publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, and Frontiers. COI transparency is critical for academic credibility, yet limited research has focused on COI practices among Iranian researchers. This study addresses this gap by examining the prevalence and impact of COI disclosures on manuscript acceptance, and the effect of foreign collaborations on perceptions of submissions from Iran.

Methods:

Using a qualitative approach, structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 reviewers to gather insights into COI disclosure practices among Iranian authors and the factors influencing acceptance decisions. This mixed-method approach provided both quantitative and qualitative perspectives on COI issues and reviewer perceptions.

Results:

Results showed that COI disclosure among Iranian authors is low, with 92% of reviewers noting non-disclosure impacted their acceptance decisions. Reviewers also indicated that manuscripts with foreign co-authors were perceived more credibly, suggesting international collaborations may improve ethical perceptions. Additionally, Iranian authors often lack distinction between financial, relational, or professional COIs, possibly reflecting gaps in awareness or guidelines. Cultural and procedural challenges were also identified as barriers to adhering to global standards.

Conclusion:

This study suggests that enhancing COI education and implementing clear policies could empower Iranian authors to adopt best practices, supporting both their professional credibility and institutional reputation. Improved, context-aware COI practices could foster trust and integrity in research from Iran.