Conflicts of interest policy and register.

Principle and scope

The policy binds all trustees, founders, officers, employees, volunteers, Scientific Advisory Board and working-group members, assessors, reviewers, faculty, authors, speakers and any person influencing an IAMRegen decision. An actual conflict is where a secondary interest currently conflicts with or materially impairs duty or judgement; a potential conflict may arise if reasonably foreseeable circumstances occur; a perceived conflict is where a reasonable, informed observer could believe judgement may be improperly influenced, even if no influence occurred. All three must be identified and managed; the culpable act is non-disclosure or failure to follow mitigation.

Interests to declare

Declarable interests include:

• employment, consultancy, directorship, partnership, advisory role or paid service;
• shareholding, options, royalties, patents, licences, distribution rights or other financial interest;
• research funding, grants, equipment, travel, hospitality, speaking fees or in-kind support;
• clinical business, referral, procurement, supplier, treatment, product or service interest;
• editorial office, journal relationship, authorship, institutional loyalty or competing publication;
• close family, personal, supervisory, employment or substantial collaborative relationship;
• a publicly stated position, litigation, complaint, rivalry or other circumstance reasonably capable of affecting judgement.

Timing and the register

A declaration is required on appointment, at least annually, at the start of every relevant meeting, project or assessment, and within 14 days of a material change; authors and Delphi participants also make project-specific declarations.

The Conflicts Officer maintains a complete restricted register and a proportionate public register of senior decision-makers, editors, methods leads and assessors. Public entries state the role, category and nature of the relevant interest, the date updated and the mitigation; sensitive personal data may be withheld where lawful and justified.

Assessment and mitigation

The chair or a designated unconflicted decision-maker determines mitigation according to a four-level risk scale. The conflicted person must not determine their own mitigation and may be asked factual questions only before withdrawing:

• Low — a remote interest with no material connection to the decision: record and permit participation; monitor.
• Moderate — a professional relationship, prior collaboration, non-material funding or a declared public position: record; restrict access or discussion as appropriate; independent check.
• High — a direct financial interest, close relationship, current editorial or commercial control, or an applicant linked to an assessor: full recusal from papers, discussion, scoring and decision; appoint an unconflicted substitute.
• Unmanageable — insufficient unconflicted quorum, unauthorised benefit, or a conflict that undermines credible independence: do not decide; refer to the trustees, an independent panel or an external authority.

What recusal means

Recusal means no access to confidential assessment or peer-review material beyond ordinary applicant/author access; no reviewer selection; no lobbying; no scoring; no presence during deliberation; no decision; and no drafting of the outcome except to correct an objective factual error.

If a founder is conflicted, that founder does not count toward the Founding Five quorum; if fewer than three non-conflicted founders remain, the matter goes to the trustees or an independent panel.

Specific mandatory safeguards

Four situations carry named, mandatory safeguards:

• ORTST: Professor Feza Korkusuz (ORTST Editor-in-Chief; IAMRegen President-Elect and Scientific Advisory Board Chair) and Professor Paul Lee (ORTST Section Editor; IAMRegen President) must be recused from handling or deciding any IAMRegen submission in which they have an interest; an unconflicted editor controls the process.
• Centres: a founder-linked organisation is an applicant only. No linked founder, close collaborator, employee, contractor or financially connected person may assess or decide its recognition.
• Commercial products or services: a person with a direct commercial interest may provide declared factual expertise but may not control the evidence synthesis, recommendation, procurement/endorsement decision or the sponsor firewall.
• Awards and fellowships: nominees, supervisors, close collaborators and institutional competitors must be declared and managed before scoring.

Breach and review

Suspected non-disclosure is assessed under the complaints and misconduct procedure, and interim restriction may be imposed to protect integrity. Outcomes may include correction of the register, re-performance of the decision, a warning, removal from role, status suspension, output correction or external referral.

A person may request review of a mitigation decision within 10 working days; the review is by an unconflicted trustee or delegate not involved in the original decision, and protective recusal remains in force during the review.