Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers play a critical gatekeeping role in scholarly publishing and are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and confidentiality, consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts under review are privileged, confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or distribute any part of a manuscript with anyone outside the official review process, including colleagues, students, or on public/social platforms.
  • Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to AI tools, translation services, or any third-party platform not explicitly authorized by the journal (see Use of Artificial Intelligence policy).
  • Reviewers must not retain or use unpublished data, methods, or ideas encountered during review for their own research or professional advantage.

Objectivity and Fairness

  • Reviews must be conducted objectively, based solely on the scholarly merit of the work. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate; feedback should focus on the manuscript itself.
  • Reviewers should support their assessments with clear reasoning and, where relevant, citations to published literature.
  • Reviewers must disclose to the editor any prior knowledge of the manuscript or its likely authorship (even under blind review, identity is sometimes inferable) if it may affect their objectivity.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline to review, or immediately disclose to the editor, any of the following:

  • A close personal, professional, or financial relationship with any author
  • Direct academic or commercial competition with the authors' work
  • Any recent (typically within 3 years) collaboration or co-authorship with any of the manuscript's authors
  • Any other relationship that could reasonably be perceived to compromise impartial judgment

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within the agreed timeframe. If circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers should notify the editorial office as early as possible so alternative arrangements can be made.

Identifying Misconduct

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or any other form of misconduct, they must report this directly and confidentially to the handling editor rather than making public accusations or contacting the authors directly.

Respectful Conduct

Reviews must be professional, respectful, and free from any discriminatory, dismissive, or inflammatory language, regardless of the reviewer's assessment of the manuscript's quality.

Consequences of Breach

Reviewers found to have breached confidentiality, plagiarized reviewed content, exhibited bias, or otherwise violated these ethical standards may be removed from the journal's reviewer pool and, in serious cases, reported to their institution.

Questions

Reviewers with questions about these ethical standards, or who need to report a concern, should contact support@jmisip.com.