In The Swedish Research Council’s guidelines for managing conflicts of interest, Reg. No: 1.2.4-2019-001391, pp 4-5, the following examples of disqualifying and potentially disqualifying conflicts of interest are given.

Examples of situations where a disqualifying conflict of interest typically exists are:

  • When an economic or other dependency circumstance exists. Examples of the latter are situations where an applicant or participating researcher has an assignment to evaluate the competence, application, department or subject of the person taking part in the handling of the matter.
  • When an ongoing or recently terminated close collaboration exists, such as a teacher-student relationship, or a joint research project. The relationship between a doctoral student and his/her supervisor is considered a disqualifying conflict of interest regardless of how long ago the collaboration occurred.
  • When there is evident friendship, enmity or difference of opinion.
  • When there is a manager-employee relationship.
  • When the person taking part in the handling in another context has handled an issue the matter relates to, for example as a representative of another public agency or organization.

Examples of situations where there is a risk of a disqualifying conflict of interest are:

  • When there exists co-authorship of books or articles. As a rule, taking part in the handling of a matter should be avoided where research collaboration and co-authorship has occurred during the last 5 years. A joint article or a joint chapter in an edited book may be enough to establish co-authorship. Co-authorship that occurred more than 5 years ago can also constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest. The determining factor will be whether or not it was the result of close collaboration, and must be assessed from case to case.
  • When a person taking part in the handling of a matter belongs to the same institution (particularly small and medium-sized ones) or a similar financially independent entity as an applicant or participant.
  • When the nature of a person's involvement in the matter easily arouses suspicion that the basis for impartial assessment is compromised.”