Confidential Manuscript Handling
Submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, review comments, editorial correspondence and decision records are handled as confidential scholarly material.
Peer Review Confidentiality Policy
Peer Review Confidentiality Policy of UnivColl Publications
A publisher-level policy for protecting submitted manuscripts, reviewer identity, editorial correspondence, internal decision records and unpublished scholarly material throughout the peer-review and publication process.
Confidential Manuscript Handling
Reviewer Identity Protection
Editorial Integrity
Scholarly Record Trust
Policy Statement
Confidentiality Is Essential to Fair and Trustworthy Peer Review
UnivColl Publications treats peer-review confidentiality as a core condition of responsible scholarly publishing. Manuscripts submitted for journals, books, edited volumes, book chapters, special issues and conference proceedings may contain unpublished ideas, data, arguments, findings and intellectual work that must be protected from unauthorised use or disclosure.
This policy applies to reviewers, editors, guest editors, editorial board members, advisory experts, editorial staff, technical personnel and any authorised person who receives access to manuscript files or confidential publication records.
Confidential Review Standard
Last reviewed: 28 July 2026
- ✓Protects unpublished author work and scholarly ideas.
- ✓Supports independent, impartial and evidence-based review.
- ✓Reduces improper influence, misuse and unauthorised disclosure.
- ✓Maintains trust among authors, reviewers, editors and readers.
Policy Foundations
Four Principles Behind Confidential Peer Review
The confidentiality framework is designed to protect authors, support reviewers, guide editors and preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.
Responsible Reviewer Conduct
Reviewers must not share, copy, upload, distribute, cite, reproduce or use manuscript content outside the authorised peer-review process.
Editorial Independence
Editors and editorial staff must protect reviewer identity, author information, review history and internal editorial deliberations unless disclosure is required by policy or law.
Fair and Ethical Review
Confidentiality supports honest expert assessment, reduces improper influence and helps maintain trust in the scholarly publication process.
Confidential Material
What Must Be Protected During Peer Review?
Confidentiality applies before review, during review, after editorial decision and, where relevant, even after publication. Publication of the final article does not automatically make reviewer identities, internal notes or editorial deliberations public.
01Manuscript files
02Review reports
03Editorial records
04Integrity checks
- ✓ Submitted manuscripts, revised manuscripts, supplementary files and cover letters
- ✓ Unpublished data, research findings, figures, tables, images, datasets and methodological details
- ✓ Reviewer invitations, reviewer identities, review reports and confidential comments to editors
- ✓ Author responses, editorial notes, internal decision records and correspondence with the editorial office
- ✓ Similarity reports, ethical screening observations, integrity checks and publication concern records
- ✓ Special issue communications, guest editor notes and confidential board discussions
- ✓ Personal information collected for legitimate editorial and publication management purposes
Who Must Follow This Policy?
Publication Ethics
Confidentiality Duties by Role
Every participant in the publication process has a duty to protect confidential manuscript material and editorial information.
| Participant | Confidentiality Duty |
|---|---|
| Reviewers | Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts privately, protect all content from unauthorised access, avoid discussion with third parties and keep review comments professional, evidence-based and confidential. |
| Editors | Editors must preserve the confidentiality of submissions, reviewer details, editorial deliberations, author responses and integrity assessments throughout the review and decision process. |
| Editorial Staff | Editorial staff and authorised publisher personnel may access manuscript records only for legitimate publication workflow, technical support, indexing, metadata, archiving or record-management purposes. |
| Authors | Authors should not attempt to identify anonymous reviewers, contact reviewers directly, influence the review process or publicly disclose confidential editorial correspondence. |
| Guest Editors | Guest editors must follow the same confidentiality standards as regular editors and must not use privileged manuscript information for personal, institutional or competitive advantage. |
| Advisory Members | Editorial board or advisory members consulted on a manuscript must treat all shared material as confidential and must disclose any conflict before giving advice. |
Reviewer Obligations
Core Confidentiality Rules for Reviewers
Reviewers receive privileged access to unpublished scholarly work. That access must never be misused for personal, professional, institutional or competitive advantage.
Do Not Share the Manuscript
A reviewer must not forward, photograph, download to shared devices, circulate, discuss or show the manuscript to students, colleagues, assistants, supervisors or collaborators without prior written permission from the editorial office.
Do Not Use Unpublished Ideas
Reviewers must not use unpublished hypotheses, data, interpretations, images, techniques, references or arguments from a manuscript for personal research, teaching, grant proposals, presentations or publication.
Do Not Contact the Author
Reviewers should not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review. All questions, concerns and required clarifications must be routed through the editor or editorial office.
Protect Reviewer Identity
Where the review model is anonymous or double-anonymous, reviewers should avoid self-identifying remarks unless the journal has an approved open or signed review policy.
Return or Destroy Local Copies
After completing the review, reviewers should delete unnecessary local copies and preserve only the record required by the journal’s authorised review system or communication thread.
Report Confidentiality Risks
Any accidental disclosure, mistaken forwarding, compromised device, unauthorised access or attempted influence must be reported promptly to the editorial office.
Confidential Review Workflow
How Confidentiality Is Maintained in the Editorial Process
The confidentiality process begins when a manuscript is submitted and continues through screening, review, revision, decision, publication, correction, appeal or integrity assessment where applicable.
Final decisions remain editorial decisions.
Reviewers provide expert recommendations. Editors evaluate the complete record, journal scope, review comments, author responses, ethics requirements and publication standards before making the final decision.
01
Submission Received
The manuscript and related files are received as confidential material and are handled only by authorised editorial personnel.
02
Initial Editorial Screening
Editors review scope, format, originality, ethics, authorship and completeness without unnecessary disclosure of manuscript content.
03
Reviewer Invitation
Potential reviewers receive only the information necessary to decide whether they can review and whether any conflict of interest exists.
04
Confidential Review
Approved reviewers evaluate the manuscript privately and submit comments through the authorised editorial pathway.
05
Editorial Decision
The editor considers reviewer comments, author responses and policy requirements while protecting confidential deliberations.
06
Post-Decision Record Protection
Review records are retained only for legitimate editorial, audit, integrity, publication record and continuity purposes.
AI and Third-Party Tools
Confidential Manuscripts Must Not Be Exposed to Unsafe Tools
Because peer review involves unpublished and confidential content, reviewers and editors must use caution with generative AI, translation tools, grammar platforms, summarisation services, cloud drives and any third-party tool that may retain, process, train on or disclose submitted manuscript material.
- ✓ Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, review reports or confidential correspondence into public AI chatbots, translation systems, grammar tools, summarisation tools or third-party platforms that may store or reuse content.
- ✓ Automated language support may be used only when confidentiality is protected, data is not retained for training, and the user remains fully responsible for accuracy and ethical compliance.
- ✓ AI or automated tools must not replace expert human review, editorial judgment, conflict-of-interest assessment or research-integrity evaluation.
- ✓ Any permitted use of automated tools in editorial handling must remain proportionate, supervised and consistent with the publisher’s confidentiality, privacy and publication ethics policies.
Limited Exceptions
When Limited Disclosure May Be Permitted
Confidentiality is the default. Limited disclosure may occur only when necessary, authorised and proportionate to a legitimate editorial, ethical, technical or legal purpose.
Editorial Consultation
An editor may consult another editor, editorial board member, specialist reviewer or integrity adviser when necessary for fair assessment, provided confidentiality is clearly maintained.
Ethics and Integrity Investigation
Relevant information may be shared with authorised ethics, institutional or publisher representatives when a publication concern requires responsible assessment.
Legal or Regulatory Requirement
Disclosure may occur where required by applicable law, valid legal process, institutional investigation or protection of participants, readers or the scholarly record.
Authorised Technical Support
Limited access may be given to authorised technical personnel for secure platform maintenance, metadata processing, archiving, backup, indexing or system troubleshooting.
Peer Review Models
Confidentiality Applies Across Review Models
Journals and publishing programs may use different review models, such as single-anonymous, double-anonymous, editorial review or open review where stated. Unless a specific journal has clearly adopted an open peer-review model, review identities, reports and internal deliberations must remain confidential.
Practical Meaning
Public Article Does Not Mean Public Review File
After an article is published, the final Version of Record may be openly available, but pre-publication files, reviewer reports, confidential reviewer identities, editor-only comments and decision deliberations remain protected unless the applicable journal policy expressly provides otherwise.
Authors, reviewers and readers may request clarification through the editorial office, but confidential review files are not normally released to third parties.
Breach Handling
Reporting and Responding to Confidentiality Concerns
A confidentiality concern may include unauthorised manuscript sharing, attempted reviewer identification, direct author-reviewer contact, improper use of unpublished data, unsafe AI upload, compromised email account, accidental forwarding or disclosure to an unauthorised person.
✓
Immediate Reporting
Anyone who becomes aware of a possible confidentiality breach should report it to the editorial office with manuscript details, date, nature of disclosure and available evidence.
✓
Preliminary Assessment
The editorial office may assess the seriousness, affected parties, possible conflict, risk to the review process and need for reassignment or additional safeguards.
✓
Corrective Action
Possible actions include reviewer replacement, editor recusal, manuscript reassessment, warning, process correction, institutional notification or withdrawal of reviewer privileges.
✓
Record and Learning
Relevant facts and actions may be recorded confidentially to support audit, recurrence prevention, policy improvement and protection of the scholarly record.
Frequently Asked Questions
Peer Review Confidentiality FAQ
These answers clarify common confidentiality questions for authors, reviewers, editors, institutions and readers.
What does peer review confidentiality mean?
It means that manuscripts, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial discussions and decision records are not public information and must be accessed only by authorised persons for legitimate editorial purposes.
Can a reviewer ask a colleague for help?
A reviewer should not involve any colleague, student, assistant or collaborator unless the editor gives prior written permission. Any approved contributor must also follow the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest rules.
Can reviewers use AI tools to summarise a manuscript?
Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential review material to public or non-secure AI tools because this may expose confidential content and compromise the review process.
Does confidentiality continue after publication?
Yes. Published articles may be public, but reviewer identities, internal editorial notes, confidential comments and pre-publication deliberations remain confidential unless disclosure is authorised by policy or law.
What should an author do if they suspect a breach of confidentiality?
The author should contact the editorial office with the manuscript title, journal or publication program, timeline, description of concern and supporting evidence so the matter can be reviewed responsibly.
Reviewer Ecosystem
Confidential peer-review and integrity pathway
This pathway connects reviewer confidentiality with peer-review policy, publication ethics, conflict disclosure and official concern reporting.
Reviewer Guidelines
Apply confidentiality duties within practical review reports.
OpenFor Reviewers
Return to the reviewer hub for complete reviewer support.
OpenPeer Review Policy
Read publisher-wide peer-review standards.
OpenPublication Ethics
Understand research integrity and publication ethics principles.
OpenReport Malpractice
Use the formal publication malpractice reporting route when needed.
OpenContact Publisher
Raise confidentiality concerns through official support.
Open
Trust and Transparency
Responsible peer-review participation without misleading promises
Reviewer participation supports editorial assessment, but it does not create acceptance, indexing, citation, ranking, impact factor, publication timeline or third-party database listing guarantees. Editorial decisions remain independent, policy-based and record-supported.
Scholarly Access
Reviewer guidance supports transparent scholarly communication and responsible publication workflows.
Independent Assessment
Review comments should be confidential, evidence-based, objective and useful to editors and authors.
Conflict Disclosure
Reviewers should disclose conflicts and decline assignments where impartiality may be affected.
Documented Records
Reviewer records, recognition and communication should be handled through official publisher records.
External Guidance
Responsible external references for reviewer identity and ethics
These independent resources may help reviewers understand scholarly identity, ethics, metadata and licensing language. External platforms control their own standards, records and decisions.