Review Ethics

1. Role and Ethical Responsibility of Reviewers

Reviewers contribute independent scholarly expertise to the assessment of manuscripts under consideration by the Journal.

A reviewer is expected to:

• assess the manuscript within the reviewer’s area of competence;
• provide an independent and reasoned scholarly evaluation;
• identify substantive strengths, limitations, and issues requiring attention;
• provide constructive comments capable of assisting editorial decision-making and, where appropriate, manuscript improvement;
• respect the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process;
• disclose relevant conflicts of interest;
• avoid personal, discriminatory, retaliatory, or otherwise improper considerations;
• report credible research-integrity or publication-ethics concerns confidentially to the Journal;
• comply with applicable Journal policies and reviewer instructions.

Acceptance of a review invitation constitutes an undertaking to conduct the review responsibly and in accordance with these standards.

2. Independence and Impartiality

A reviewer must approach the manuscript independently and impartially.

Assessment must be based solely on scholarly considerations relevant to the manuscript and must not be influenced by any known or reasonably inferred characteristics, affiliations, status, or relationships of the author(s) that are unrelated to the scholarly merit of the work, including:

• nationality or citizenship;
• institutional affiliation, prestige, or status;
• professional or academic rank;
• personal relationships;
• commercial considerations;
• ideological disagreement unrelated to scholarly quality;
• anticipated citation benefit;
• competition for academic recognition;
• other considerations unrelated to legitimate scholarly assessment.

Under the Journal’s double-blind model, reviewers must not seek to identify such characteristics or the identity of the author(s). Where the reviewer nevertheless identifies or reasonably suspects an author and becomes aware of a relationship or circumstance capable of affecting impartiality, the matter must be disclosed to the Journal in accordance with the conflict-of-interest provisions of this policy.

A reviewer must not accept or continue a review where circumstances exist that prevent, or could reasonably be perceived as preventing, an independent and impartial assessment.

Independence must be considered both before appointment and throughout the review process.

3. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, personal, competitive, or other interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

Before appointment, the Editorial Office or competent editorial authority checks reasonably available information concerning the reviewer’s current institutional affiliation and identifiable professional or collaborative relationships with the authors, including, where available:

• the current institutional affiliations of the author(s) and prospective reviewer;
• ORCID records;
• publication profiles;
• co-authorship history;
• known participation in the same research project;
• known supervisory, student–supervisor, or mentor–mentee relationships;
• relevant information already available in the Journal’s editorial records.

Reviewers remain responsible for disclosing conflicts or relationships known to them that may not be apparent from publicly or editorially available information.

Where a relevant conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must decline the invitation or promptly withdraw from the review.

If uncertainty exists as to whether a circumstance constitutes a relevant conflict, the reviewer should disclose the circumstance to the Journal rather than independently assume that it is immaterial.

4. Institutional and Professional Independence

A reviewer must not be currently affiliated with the same institution as any author of the manuscript.

Institutional separation alone does not establish independence.

A reviewer affiliated with a different institution may nevertheless have a relevant conflict arising from:

• recent or continuing research collaboration;
• co-authorship;
• joint research projects;
• supervisory relationships;
• mentor–mentee relationships;
• financial interests;
• close professional relationships;
• personal relationships;
• significant professional competition or dispute;
• other circumstances capable of affecting impartiality.

The existence and significance of such circumstances are considered in the context of the particular review.

Reviewer selection and conflict screening are governed further by the Journal’s Peer Review Process.

Related: Peer Review Process

5. Double-Blind Anonymity and Identification of Authors

The Journal applies external double-blind peer review.

Under this model, authors and reviewers are not informed of each other’s identities during the peer-review process.

Reviewers must not deliberately attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript submitted for double-blind peer review.

Double-blind review does not guarantee that authorship can never be inferred. A reviewer may recognise or reasonably suspect the identity of an author from the research topic, methodology, references, data, previous scholarship, or other contextual information.

Identification or suspected identification of an author does not by itself invalidate the review.

However, if a reviewer identifies or reasonably suspects the identity of an author and that knowledge gives rise to a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must promptly inform the Journal and must not continue the assessment unless the competent editorial authority determines that continued participation is appropriate.

Reviewer anonymity must likewise be protected in accordance with the Journal’s double-blind model.

6. Confidentiality of Manuscripts and Review Materials

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• disclose the manuscript or its contents to unauthorised persons;
• distribute, reproduce, publish, or otherwise make manuscript materials available outside the authorised review process;
• discuss confidential manuscript content with third parties except where expressly authorised by the Journal;
• use unpublished information obtained through peer review for purposes unrelated to the review;
• exploit confidential information for personal, academic, professional, financial, competitive, or other advantage.

Reviewer reports, correspondence relating to the review, and information obtained through the review process are also confidential.

Reviewer reports may be communicated to authors in anonymised form as part of the editorial and revision process. Such communication does not disclose the reviewer’s identity and does not remove the confidential status of the peer-review record.

The duty of confidentiality continues after completion, withdrawal, or termination of the review.

7. Generative AI and External AI Services

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts when using generative AI, AI-assisted technologies, or other external automated services.

Confidential manuscript text, figures, tables, data, supplementary materials, reviewer correspondence, or other unpublished content must not be submitted to an external generative AI or AI-assisted service where doing so would be inconsistent with the Journal’s Generative AI Policy, confidentiality obligations, data-protection requirements, intellectual-property obligations, or other applicable rules.

Generative AI systems must not replace the reviewer’s own scholarly assessment or reasoning.

A reviewer remains personally responsible for:

• the content of the review;
• the accuracy of statements made in the review;
• the scholarly reasoning underlying recommendations;
• compliance with confidentiality obligations;
• any use of AI-assisted technologies attributable to the reviewer.

Scientific peer review remains a human scholarly responsibility.

Related: Generative AI Policy

8. Reviewer Competence and Scope of Expertise

A reviewer should accept an invitation only where the manuscript falls sufficiently within the reviewer’s area of scholarly or methodological competence.

A reviewer is not required to possess expertise in every aspect of a multidisciplinary manuscript.

Where the reviewer is competent to assess only part of the work, the reviewer should make any material limitation of expertise clear to the Journal where it may affect interpretation of the review.

Reviewers should not present themselves as competent to assess methods, disciplines, data, legal or ethical matters, or other specialised issues outside their reasonable expertise.

Where substantial aspects of the manuscript cannot be reliably assessed, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Office.

9. Objectivity, Fairness and Respectful Assessment

Reviewer comments must be objective, professional, and directed to the scholarly content of the manuscript.

Criticism should be expressed clearly and supported, where appropriate, by reasoning.

Reviewers must avoid:

• personal attacks;
• insulting or humiliating language;
• discriminatory comments;
• hostile or retaliatory statements;
• unsupported allegations;
• comments concerning an author’s presumed personal characteristics that are irrelevant to scholarly assessment.

Disagreement with an author’s interpretation, theoretical position, methodological choice, or conclusion is legitimate where expressed through scholarly reasoning.

A reviewer should distinguish between:

• a substantive scholarly deficiency;
• a reasonable difference of academic interpretation or judgement;
• a personal preference concerning style, method, terminology, or theoretical approach.

10. Scholarly Integrity of Reviewer Comments

Reviewer reports should contain sufficient scholarly reasoning to enable the Editor-in-Chief or other competent editorial authority to understand the basis of the reviewer’s conclusions.

A reviewer should not knowingly:

• misrepresent the manuscript;
• exaggerate deficiencies;
• suppress relevant strengths;
• make claims unsupported by the manuscript or available evidence;
• recommend rejection for reasons unrelated to scholarly assessment;
• use the review process to obstruct legitimate academic competition;
• exploit privileged access to unpublished work.

An unsupported recommendation such as “Accept” or “Reject”, without adequate scholarly reasoning, should not by itself be treated as a sufficient basis for editorial decision-making.

Reviewers should distinguish clearly between matters that are essential to the validity or scholarly adequacy of the manuscript and optional suggestions that may improve presentation.

11. Citation Recommendations and Citation Manipulation

Citation recommendations must serve legitimate scholarly purposes.

A reviewer may recommend additional references where they are genuinely relevant to:

• the research question;
• methodology;
• theoretical framework;
• interpretation of results;
• significant prior scholarship;
• correction of a material omission.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite publications primarily for the purpose of:

• increasing the reviewer’s own citation count;
• increasing citations to the reviewer’s institution;
• increasing citations to the Journal;
• benefiting another author or publication without legitimate scholarly justification;
• manipulating citation metrics.

Where suggesting a citation, the reviewer should be able to explain its scholarly relevance if requested.

Reviewer participation in coordinated or coercive citation practices is incompatible with this policy.

12. Research-Integrity and Publication-Ethics Concerns

A reviewer who identifies a possible research-integrity or publication-ethics concern should report it confidentially to the handling editor or Editorial Office.

Such concerns may include, among other matters:

• possible plagiarism or inappropriate overlap;
• fabrication or falsification;
• unreliable or manipulated data;
• duplicate or concurrent publication;
• inappropriate authorship practices;
• citation manipulation;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• ethical concerns affecting human participants, animals, or protected data;
• peer-review manipulation;
• inappropriate use of generative AI;
• other matters potentially affecting the reliability or integrity of the manuscript.

A reviewer must not independently investigate the author, contact the author’s institution, contact third parties about the allegation, or attempt to conduct a formal misconduct investigation unless specifically authorised through an appropriate Journal procedure.

The existence of a concern does not establish that misconduct occurred.

The Journal determines the appropriate next step under its Publication Ethics policy and other applicable procedures.

Related: Publication Ethics

13. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Authority

Reviewer recommendations assist the Journal in editorial decision-making but do not constitute final editorial decisions.

Under the Journal’s approved Manuscript Review Form, the reviewer selects one of the following recommendation categories and provides comments explaining the basis for the selection:

• Extremely strong; definitely accept for publication;
• Strong; probably accept for publication after minor revisions;
• Paper requires revisions before it can be considered for acceptance;
• Paper requires substantial revisions before it can be considered;
• Not acceptable for publication.

These categories constitute reviewer recommendations only. They record the reviewer’s scholarly assessment and recommendation concerning the manuscript and do not constitute final editorial decisions of the Journal.

The Journal’s principal editorial decisions are:

• Accept;
• Revise;
• Reject.

The extent of any required revision and the need for subsequent external reassessment are determined editorially in accordance with the Journal’s Peer Review Process.

Except where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, the final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

A final editorial decision may differ from an individual reviewer recommendation where the available scholarly information provides a sufficient basis for a different conclusion.

Related: Editorial Policies · Peer Review Process

14. Timeliness and Ability to Complete the Review

A reviewer should accept an invitation only where they can reasonably complete the assessment within the timeframe communicated by the Journal.

A reviewer who cannot undertake the review should decline the invitation promptly.

If circumstances arise after acceptance that are likely to prevent timely completion, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Office as soon as reasonably possible.

The Journal may:

• allow additional time;
• appoint a replacement reviewer;
• take another appropriate editorial step.

A reviewer should not submit an incomplete or superficial assessment solely to meet a deadline.

At the same time, unnecessary delay in peer review should be avoided.

This policy does not establish a universal fixed review period. The applicable timeframe may be communicated through the individual review invitation, reviewer instructions, or the Manuscript Review Form.

15. Participation of Third Parties in a Review

A reviewer invitation is personal to the invited reviewer.

The reviewer must not transfer the manuscript or substantive responsibility for the assessment to:

• a colleague;
• research assistant;
• student;
• doctoral candidate;
• postdoctoral researcher;
• other third party,

without prior authorisation from the Journal.

Where participation of another qualified person could legitimately contribute to the assessment, the reviewer must obtain approval from the Editorial Office before sharing confidential manuscript material.

Any authorised contributor to the review must:

• be appropriately qualified;
• comply with confidentiality requirements;
• disclose relevant conflicts of interest;
• comply with applicable rules concerning generative AI and external services;
• be appropriately documented in the Journal’s editorial records.

The invited reviewer remains responsible for the review submitted under their name unless the Journal has expressly established another arrangement.

16. Revised Manuscripts and Reassessment

A reviewer may be invited to reassess a revised manuscript where substantive comments or recommendations require verification of implementation.

When conducting reassessment, the reviewer should consider:

• the revised manuscript;
• the author’s response to relevant reviewer comments;
• whether substantive issues previously identified have been adequately addressed;
• any new issues arising from the revisions that materially affect scholarly assessment.

Reviewers should not introduce entirely new requirements at the reassessment stage without scholarly justification.

Where a reviewer develops a relevant conflict of interest, becomes unable to continue, or can no longer provide an independent assessment, the reviewer must inform the Journal.

The organisation of reassessment, including whether a revised manuscript is returned to one or both original reviewers or to another independent reviewer, is governed by the Journal’s Peer Review Process.

Related: Peer Review Process

17. Use of Unpublished Information

Information, ideas, methods, data, interpretations, analyses, arguments, or other scholarly material obtained through confidential peer review must not be used by the reviewer for personal or professional advantage before lawful public disclosure.

A reviewer must not:

• appropriate unpublished ideas;
• use unpublished findings in the reviewer’s own research without appropriate permission;
• disclose unpublished findings to competitors;
• use privileged manuscript information to obtain a publication, funding, commercial, professional, or competitive advantage;
• disadvantage an author through misuse of confidential information.

Where the reviewer later wishes to use information that became known through peer review, such use must comply with applicable confidentiality, intellectual-property, citation, publication, and other relevant requirements.

18. Reviewer Records and Accountability

The Journal maintains appropriate records relating to peer review and reviewer participation.

Depending on the manuscript and circumstances, such records may include:

• reviewer invitations;
• reviewer acceptance or decline;
• reviewer identity and contact information retained for editorial administration;
• affiliation information;
• conflict-of-interest disclosures or related editorial checks;
• reviewer reports;
• Manuscript Review Forms;
• reassessment reports;
• significant correspondence;
• withdrawals or replacements of reviewers;
• other information reasonably necessary to document the review process.

Such records are maintained with appropriate regard for confidentiality, data protection, legitimate editorial needs, and accountability.

The existence of internal reviewer records does not imply that the Journal publicly discloses reviewer identities or maintains a publicly accessible reviewer database.

19. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This policy forms part of the Journal’s wider editorial and publication-governance framework.

The organisation and stages of peer review are governed by the Peer Review Process.

Editorial authority, final decision-making, conflicts involving editors, and transfer of editorial authority are governed by Editorial Policies.

Research-integrity and publication-ethics concerns are governed by Publication Ethics.

Practical instructions for conducting a review and completing the Journal’s review documentation are provided in the Guidelines for Reviewers.

Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies is governed by the Generative AI Policy.

These documents should be interpreted consistently and should not establish conflicting descriptions of the same editorial or peer-review process.

20. Policy Governance and Review

This policy is owned by the Editorial Board of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” and approved by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

The policy is reviewed periodically and may be updated in response to:

• changes in the Journal’s peer-review procedures;
• experience gained through the operation of the peer-review system;
• changes in related Journal policies;
• developments in scholarly publishing and research integrity;
• changes in relevant international guidance;
• applicable legal or regulatory requirements.

Material revisions are identified through the version number and review date displayed at the beginning of this policy.

Where revision of this policy affects another Journal policy or procedure, the related documents should be reviewed for consistency.