Personal Relationships
Family relationships, close friendship, personal rivalry, mentorship dependency, student-supervisor relationship or any direct personal connection that may reasonably affect impartial judgment.
Editorial Integrity Policy
Editor and Reviewer Conflict of Interest Policy
UnivColl Publications maintains this policy to support independent editorial handling, fair peer review, transparent disclosure, confidentiality and protection of the scholarly record across journals and publishing programs.
Policy position:
Conflicts of interest are not limited to financial matters. Personal relationships, academic competition,
institutional connections, editorial roles, sponsorships and perceived bias must also be considered before
an editor or reviewer participates in a manuscript decision.
Policy Purpose
Protecting Editorial Independence and Peer-Review Trust
A conflict of interest may exist when an editor's or reviewer's professional judgment could be influenced, or reasonably perceived to be influenced, by a secondary interest. The secondary interest may be financial, personal, academic, institutional, competitive, ideological or reputational.
The purpose of this policy is to prevent biased assessment, protect confidentiality, document recusal decisions and ensure that manuscripts are evaluated on academic merit, journal scope, research integrity and transparent peer-review standards.
Disclosure First
Independent Handling
Confidential Review
No Private Gain
Core Rule
When in doubt, disclose the relationship before proceeding.
Disclosure does not automatically mean misconduct or disqualification. It allows the editorial office to decide whether the editor or reviewer may proceed, should be replaced, or must be recused to protect fairness and trust.
What Must Be Disclosed
Common Editor and Reviewer Conflict Categories
The following examples are not exhaustive. Editors and reviewers should disclose any situation that may affect, or appear to affect, impartial assessment of a manuscript.
Recent Collaboration
Recent co-authorship, joint grant activity, active research collaboration, shared laboratory or project partnership with the author, reviewer, editor or guest editor.
Institutional Connection
Current employment, recent employment, same department, same research centre or direct institutional reporting relationship that may create actual or perceived bias.
Financial Interest
Consultancy, honorarium, stock ownership, paid expert role, sponsored project, commercial interest, patent, licensing interest or other financial connection related to the manuscript topic.
Academic Competition
Direct competition, rivalry, ongoing dispute, contested priority, unpublished competing work or any situation where manuscript outcome may benefit or harm the evaluator.
Ideological or Professional Interest
Strong public position, advocacy role, organizational affiliation or professional commitment that may reasonably be perceived to influence neutrality on the manuscript subject.
Editorial Role Conflict
The manuscript is submitted by an editor, editorial board member, publisher staff member, guest editor, reviewer or a person closely connected with the journal decision-making process.
Use of Privileged Information
Any possibility that confidential manuscript information could be used for personal, academic, financial or institutional advantage before publication.
Editorial Responsibilities
- Screen submissions for obvious editorial, personal, institutional or financial conflicts before assigning reviewers.
- Declare any relationship or activity that could affect, or appear to affect, editorial judgment.
- Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a relevant conflict exists.
- Assign an independent editor or senior editorial authority when recusal is required.
- Avoid selecting reviewers who have clear conflicts with the authors, manuscript topic or competing work.
- Protect confidential manuscript information and never use unpublished content for private advantage.
- Document conflict disclosures, recusals and replacement decisions in the editorial record.
- Maintain separation between editorial decisions and payments, APC discussions, marketing or institutional pressure.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Read the manuscript title, abstract, author details and invitation carefully before accepting a review.
- Disclose any potential conflict to the editor immediately, even if the reviewer believes they can remain fair.
- Decline the review where impartial evaluation may be affected or reasonably questioned.
- Keep the manuscript, data, figures, reviewer invitation and editorial communication confidential.
- Do not use unpublished ideas, methods, data, references or findings for personal research advantage.
- Do not contact authors directly about the manuscript unless the editor has expressly permitted it.
- Do not delegate review work to students, colleagues, AI tools or assistants without editorial permission and disclosure.
- Submit constructive, evidence-based and respectful review comments focused on academic quality.
Recusal and Reassignment
Contact Editorial Office
When an Editor or Reviewer Should Step Aside
Recusal protects the manuscript, the journal, the reviewer, the editor and the credibility of the publication record.
| Possible Conflict | Required Editorial Action |
|---|---|
| Same institution or department | Normally recuse or seek senior editorial approval before proceeding. |
| Recent co-authorship or active collaboration | Recuse and assign an independent editor/reviewer. |
| Family, close friendship, supervision or rivalry | Recuse due to high risk of perceived bias. |
| Financial, patent, consultancy or sponsored interest | Disclose and recuse unless a senior independent editor records a justified exception. |
| Manuscript from an editor or board member | Use independent editorial handling and external review separate from the submitting editor. |
| Special issue guest editor submission | Transfer handling to Editor-in-Chief or independent board member; keep external review mandatory. |
| Reviewer identifies a conflict after accepting | Stop review, inform the editor immediately and return/delete confidential material if instructed. |
| Unclear or borderline relationship | Disclose first; the editorial office decides whether review/handling can continue. |
Operational Workflow
How Conflict Disclosures Are Managed
The workflow below is designed to support transparent decision-making while protecting confidential information and avoiding unnecessary exposure of sensitive disclosures.
1
Initial Screening
The editorial office checks whether the assigned editor, guest editor or handling team has an obvious relationship with the authors, institution, funder or manuscript topic.
2
Disclosure Before Handling
Editors and reviewers are expected to disclose conflicts before accepting responsibility for editorial handling or peer review.
3
Independent Assignment
Where a conflict exists, the manuscript is reassigned to an independent editor or reviewer who has no relevant relationship with the work.
4
Confidential Documentation
Conflict notes, recusal decisions, reviewer replacements and special handling arrangements are recorded for editorial accountability.
5
Fair Decision-Making
Editorial decisions should be based on manuscript quality, scope fit, research integrity, reviewer assessment and compliance with journal policy.
6
Post-Publication Correction
If an undisclosed conflict is identified after publication, the publisher may investigate, issue clarification, publish correction, apply an expression of concern or take further ethical action.
Special Situations
Extra Safeguards for Sensitive Editorial Cases
Some cases require additional independence safeguards because the risk of perceived bias is higher. These cases should be handled with documented oversight and, where necessary, independent review.
Editor or Board Member Submissions
When an editor, board member or publisher staff member submits a manuscript, the submission should be handled by an independent editor. The submitting person must not access reviewer identity, confidential comments or decision-making discussion beyond the ordinary author communication.
Special Issues and Guest Editors
Special issue manuscripts must follow the same peer-review standards as regular submissions. Guest editors should not manage their own manuscripts, close collaborators' manuscripts or manuscripts where a conflict exists.
Institutional Proceedings and Conference Papers
Where conference proceedings or institutional collaborations are published, peer review and editorial oversight must remain independent from event promotion, sponsorship or institutional pressure.
Appeals and Complaints
Appeals involving alleged editorial conflict should be reviewed by an independent editor, publisher ethics contact or suitably independent editorial authority not involved in the original decision.
Practical Conduct Guide
Editor and Reviewer Do / Do Not Standards
These standards help keep peer review independent, professional and free from undisclosed influence.
Editors Should
- Declare relationships before handling submissions.
- Use independent editors for conflicted manuscripts.
- Keep reviewer selection free from favouritism.
- Document recusal and replacement decisions.
- Protect author and reviewer confidentiality.
Editors Should Not
- Handle manuscripts from close collaborators or direct competitors.
- Allow APC, payment or marketing matters to influence editorial decisions.
- Use unpublished manuscript content for private gain.
- Pressure reviewers to support a predetermined decision.
- Permit special issues to bypass normal peer review.
Reviewers Should
- Disclose any relationship that may affect review neutrality.
- Decline assignments where impartiality may be questioned.
- Review only within relevant expertise and available time.
- Provide respectful, specific and evidence-based comments.
- Delete or securely store confidential files as instructed.
Reviewers Should Not
- Share the manuscript with students, colleagues or AI tools without permission.
- Use unpublished content for their own publications, grants or teaching materials.
- Contact authors directly about the review.
- Recommend citations for personal benefit rather than academic relevance.
- Accept review invitations where a significant conflict exists.
Copy-Ready Declarations
Editor and Reviewer Conflict of Interest Templates
Editors, guest editors and reviewers may use or adapt the following statements during manuscript handling, review invitation response or editorial recusal.
Reviewer No-Conflict Declaration
I confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no personal, financial, institutional, academic, competitive or other relationship that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, my review of this manuscript. I agree to keep the manuscript confidential and to provide an independent, constructive and evidence-based review.
Reviewer Conflict Disclosure
I wish to disclose a potential conflict of interest related to this manuscript: [briefly describe relationship, collaboration, institutional connection, financial interest or other concern]. I request the handling editor to decide whether I should proceed with the review or decline the assignment.
Editor Recusal Statement
I disclose a potential conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript and will not participate in editorial assessment, reviewer selection, correspondence, decision-making or appeal handling for this submission. The manuscript should be assigned to an independent editor or appropriate editorial authority.
Guest Editor Independence Statement
I confirm that submissions to this special issue will be handled under the journal's normal editorial and peer-review standards. Manuscripts submitted by guest editors or close collaborators will be transferred to an independent editor for assessment and external review.
Confidentiality Confirmation
I agree not to share, discuss, copy, upload, reuse or disclose any part of the manuscript, review material, author identity, reviewer identity or editorial correspondence except as expressly permitted by the journal.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts Are Confidential Editorial Material
Editors and reviewers must treat manuscript files, author details, reviewer comments, editorial notes, unpublished data and decision correspondence as confidential. Information obtained through peer review must not be shared, reused, cited, uploaded externally or used for personal advantage.
AI and External Tools
No Uploading Confidential Manuscripts to Unapproved Tools
Reviewers and editors should not upload manuscript text, figures, tables, datasets, identities or review comments into generative AI tools, public translation engines, external editing systems or third-party platforms unless the publisher has expressly permitted such use and confidentiality protections are satisfied.
Human editorial responsibility remains essential. Automated detection or editorial support tools should not replace independent academic judgment, reviewer expertise or editor accountability.
Non-Disclosure and Misconduct
Consequences of Undisclosed or Mismanaged Conflicts
Failure to disclose a relevant conflict may affect the fairness of editorial decision-making and may damage author, reader and institutional trust. UnivColl Publications may review suspected non-disclosure in accordance with publication ethics standards and the seriousness of the case.
Possible Actions
- Reassigning the manuscript to an independent editor or reviewer.
- Excluding a conflicted review report from editorial decision-making.
- Requesting clarification or a formal disclosure statement.
- Issuing a correction, clarification or expression of concern where appropriate.
- Restricting future reviewer or editor assignments in serious cases.
- Reviewing editorial board appointment where repeated non-disclosure occurs.
- Escalating the matter to the publisher ethics contact or editorial leadership.
Frequently Asked Questions
Editor and Reviewer Conflict of Interest FAQ
Clear answers for editors, reviewers, guest editors, authors and institutions.
What is an editor or reviewer conflict of interest?
It is any personal, financial, institutional, academic, competitive or professional relationship that may influence, or reasonably appear to influence, editorial handling or peer review.
Should a reviewer disclose a possible conflict even if they can review fairly?
Yes. Disclosure allows the editor to decide whether the review can continue. Perceived conflicts can damage trust even when the reviewer believes they are impartial.
Can an editor handle a manuscript from a colleague?
Normally no. Manuscripts from close colleagues, recent collaborators, same department members or related persons should be transferred to an independent editor.
Can reviewers use generative AI to review a manuscript?
Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content into AI tools or external systems unless the journal has expressly allowed it and confidentiality, disclosure and data protection requirements are satisfied.
What happens if an undisclosed conflict is discovered after publication?
The publisher may review the case and may issue a clarification, correction, expression of concern, reviewer/editor restriction, or other editorial action depending on the seriousness of the matter.
Does disclosure automatically disqualify an editor or reviewer?
Not always. Some minor or remote relationships may be manageable, but significant conflicts require recusal or reassignment. When uncertain, disclosure is required.
Editorial Pathway
Connected Editorial Publishing Route
This page is part of the UnivColl Publications editorial ecosystem. Editorial guidance, advisory roles, reviewer responsibilities, conflict declarations, appeals and policy routes are connected so that decisions remain transparent, documented and independent.
For Editors
Apply conflict standards to editorial work.
Open PageFor Reviewers
Connect reviewer duties with disclosure.
Open PagePeer Review Confidentiality
Review confidentiality rules.
Open PageConflict Disclosure Form
Open the formal disclosure route.
Open PageEditorial Independence
Editorial decisions should be based on scope, originality, ethics, review quality and publication readiness, not payment, pressure or personal influence.
Publication Ethics
Editors, reviewers and authors are expected to follow transparent ethical standards, conflict disclosure, confidentiality and correction pathways.
Metadata Ready
Editorial actions support accurate article records, author information, issue placement, DOI-ready metadata where applicable and long-term discoverability.
No False Promise
No editorial page, application, payment, review invitation or support response guarantees acceptance, indexing, citation, ranking, impact factor or third-party listing.
Responsible References
External Guidance Links
These external references are provided as general scholarly publishing guidance. They do not imply membership, endorsement, indexing or guaranteed publication outcomes.
Next Step
Continue the Editorial Journey
Use the next action according to your role. Editors may review policies or apply for editorial involvement, reviewers may use reviewer guidance, and authors may use the submission and appeal pathways.