Ingrid Scharlau ist an einer aktuellen Publikation zu Interessenskonflikten in der Wissenschaft beteiligt. Dabei geht es nicht um die „großen“ Konflikte von Wissenschaftler*innen, die an einer Behandlungsform oder einem Medikament beteiligt sind und davon auch finanziell profitieren, sondern um die kleinen, die dadurch entstehen, dass Publizieren nicht nur Wissenschaft an sich ist, sondern auch ganz konkrete Vorteile bringt wie etwa die Möglichkeit, Drittmittel einzuwerben, ggf. sogar finanzielle Vorteile. Die Publikation stellt die Frage, ob, wann und wie solche Konflikte benannt werden können, und gibt eine umfassende und facettenreiche Antwort.
Acem, E., Aczel, B., Albayrak, N. … Scharlau, I., Verheyen, S., & Zubaly, B. (2025). Why I declare a conflict of interest and you should not. Theory and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-025-09641-3
Academic publishing is both an indication of scientific contribution and a currency for career advancement. This dual role gives rise to a normative scientific conflict: Does the structural incentive to publish constitute a conflict of interest (COI) that ought to be disclosed? In this paper, we address this conflict through an action research approach, engaging collaboratively and reflexively to answer four related questions: (1) What evidence suggests that researchers face a (financial) COI when publishing? (2) What are the benefits and drawbacks of explicitly acknowledging that publications function as academic currency? (3) How should such conflicts be disclosed? (4) Do mechanisms such as pre-registration and registered reports resolve these concerns? This paper contends that while researchers are clearly incentivised to publish, this interest need not necessarily constitute a conflict or be explicitly disclosed. Treating this issue as a normative scientific conflict does reveal the need for a shift in how researchers understand and navigate the subjective, self-interested dimensions of their work. We propose four key responses: (1) integrating discussions of COIs and biases more extensively into undergraduate science education, (2) promoting greater reflexivity in everyday research practice (e.g., through reflexivity journals, peer-led audit groups, and the reintegration of discussions on the historicity and cultural nature of research into scientific publications), (3) critically investigating institutional incentives and journal policies, and (4) proactively adopting methodological safeguards such as pre-registration. By addressing this conflict through action research, we demonstrate how normative tensions in science can be made productive — supporting both critical reflection and structural improvement.
