Reviewer Conflict Policies

Introduction

Lex Gazette is committed to ensuring the integrity and impartiality of the peer review process. To achieve this, we have established clear policies regarding conflicts of interest for reviewers. This section outlines the policies and procedures to manage and disclose conflicts of interest.

Conflict of Interest Definition

A conflict of interest occurs when a reviewer’s personal, professional, or financial interests could potentially influence their impartiality in the review process. Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

  • Financial Conflicts: Financial relationships with the authors, such as funding, investments, or financial support related to the research.
  • Personal Relationships: Personal relationships with the authors, such as friendships, family ties, or animosities.
  • Professional Relationships: Recent collaborations, co-authorship, or employment relationships with the authors or their institutions.
  • Academic Competitions: Situations where the reviewer might benefit from the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript due to competing research interests.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  1. Disclosure of Conflicts:
    • Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. This disclosure should be made to the editorial team at the time of the invitation.
  2. Withdrawal from Review:
    • If a potential conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must withdraw from the review process and notify the editorial team immediately. The editorial team will then seek an alternative reviewer.
  3. Impartiality:
    • Reviewers must conduct their reviews impartially, without allowing any disclosed or potential conflicts of interest to influence their evaluation of the manuscript.

Editorial Team Responsibilities

  1. Conflict Management:
    • The editorial team assesses potential conflicts of interest disclosed by reviewers and ensures that the review process remains unbiased. If a conflict is identified, the manuscript may be reassigned to a different reviewer.
  2. Reviewer Selection:
    • The editorial team ensures that reviewers with potential conflicts of interest are not selected for manuscripts where their impartiality could be compromised.
  3. Transparency:
    • The editorial team maintains transparency in handling conflicts of interest, ensuring that all decisions regarding conflicts are documented and communicated to relevant parties.

Handling Disclosures

  1. Assessment:
    • Disclosures of conflicts of interest are assessed on a case-by-case basis. The editorial team determines whether the conflict is significant enough to affect the review process.
  2. Decision:
    • If a conflict of interest is deemed significant, the manuscript is reassigned to an alternative reviewer who does not have a conflict. If the conflict is minor, the editorial team will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to proceed with the review.
  3. Confidentiality:
    • Information regarding conflicts of interest is handled confidentially. Only those involved in the decision-making process are privy to details about the conflict.

Conclusion

Lex Gazette is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of fairness and integrity in the peer review process. By adhering to these conflict-of-interest policies, we ensure that all reviews are conducted impartially and transparently.