Ethical standards

Peer review is a fundamental process to ensure the integrity, quality, and reliability of scientific research. Reviewers have an ethical responsibility to provide honest, impartial, and confidential evaluations of the manuscripts assigned to them.

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following ethical principles:

1. Objectivity and Impartiality

• The evaluation must be based solely on scientific merit, without discrimination regarding nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religious beliefs, or personal convictions of the authors.
• Criticism must be scientifically sound, clear, and constructive, avoiding personal judgments or unjustified attacks.
• Reviewers must not exploit their role to promote personal interests or influence publication decisions to their advantage.

2. Confidentiality

• The manuscript and its content must be treated with the utmost confidentiality.
• Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any information from the manuscript before its official publication.
• All review-related materials must be deleted after the evaluation process is complete.

3. Conflict of Interest

• Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality, including:
  • Professional or personal relationships with the authors.
  • Involvement in competing research projects.
  • Direct financial or academic interests related to the manuscript’s content.
• If a conflict arises, the reviewer must decline the assignment or inform the editor to assess their suitability for the role.

4. Intellectual Honesty and Scientific Integrity

• If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data falsification, or duplicate publication, they must report it to the editor with documented evidence.
• It is strictly prohibited to request that authors cite unnecessary works by the reviewer to inflate their citation count.
• Reviewers must not manipulate the review process to favor or disadvantage specific authors.

5. Transparency and Responsibility

• Reviewers must provide detailed and well-reasoned feedback, supporting their assessments with references to scientific literature or methodological guidelines.
• Any revision suggestions must be clear and actionable to help authors improve their work.
• If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the given timeframe, they must promptly inform the editor to allow reassignment of the manuscript to another reviewer.

6. Responsible Use of Technology and Artificial Intelligence

• Reviewers must not input the manuscript or any part of it into generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard) that could store confidential data.
• The use of technological tools should be limited to improving the readability of the review, without delegating critical judgment to automated software.

These ethical principles reflect iEditore’s commitment to fair, transparent, and rigorous peer review. Reviewers are integral to this process, and their contributions are essential to maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific literature.