Reviewer Policies
1. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Specific to Reviewers)
The Conflict of Interest (COI) and Financial Disclosures policy for reviewers is a vital component of maintaining the integrity and transparency of the peer review process in the Global Journal of Endocrinology and Diabetes. The policy ensures that all reviewers involved in the evaluation of manuscripts remain unbiased, fair, and objective, preventing any undue influence from external interests, relationships, or affiliations that may affect their judgment.
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
A conflict of interest exists when a reviewer has any personal, professional, or financial relationship that could compromise or be perceived to compromise their objectivity in reviewing a manuscript. It is essential that reviewers disclose any potential COI prior to agreeing to review a manuscript to maintain transparency and impartiality.
Types of Conflict of Interest
-
Financial Interests: Reviewers must disclose any financial relationships they have with the author(s) or organizations associated with the research presented in the manuscript. Financial conflicts could include research funding, paid consulting arrangements, or financial investments in companies related to the research topic. For example, if the reviewer has received funding from an institution that is also a funding source for the research presented, this could bias their review.
-
Personal Relationships: Reviewers must also disclose any personal relationships with the authors, such as close friendships, family connections, or professional rivalries, which might affect their ability to provide an objective evaluation. For instance, if the reviewer has previously collaborated with the authors on a similar project, there may be a perceived conflict of interest, even if there is no actual bias involved.
-
Academic Rivalry or Competition: Reviewers should disclose any academic rivalry or competition with the authors. If the reviewer perceives the manuscript as competing with their own research or academic interests, their objectivity might be compromised. For example, if the reviewer is working on similar research or has competing projects in the same field, they must disclose these potential conflicts to avoid biased evaluation.
-
Institutional Affiliation: If the reviewer is from the same institution as the author(s), this could also be seen as a potential conflict of interest, especially if the reviewer is closely involved with the author(s) professionally. Reviewers should disclose their institutional affiliations to avoid any perception of partiality.
Financial Disclosures
Reviewers are required to disclose any financial interest or funding they may have received from institutions, corporations, or governments that could be seen as influencing their review. For example, if a reviewer has received grants, honorariums, or consulting fees related to the topic of the manuscript under review, they must provide these details to the journal.
By ensuring that these financial interests are disclosed, the journal can assess whether a reviewer’s financial interests could create a conflict with their ability to provide an impartial and fair review. This also helps protect the integrity of the review process, as potential financial biases are mitigated.
Handling of Conflicts of Interest
If a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest after being invited to review a manuscript, they are expected to immediately inform the editorial office. In such cases, the reviewer should withdraw from the review process for that manuscript to ensure that the integrity of the review process is maintained. If the conflict is not apparent at the outset, but becomes evident later, the reviewer should notify the editor and recuse themselves from the review.
In cases where a conflict of interest is not disclosed, it may result in an ethical breach, potentially leading to exclusion from future review assignments, as well as damage to the journal's credibility. Thus, full transparency is essential.
Ensuring Fairness and Objectivity
The primary aim of the COPE policy regarding COI and financial disclosures is to ensure that the peer review process remains objective and free from bias. The peer review system depends on the integrity of the reviewers, as their feedback directly influences the editorial decision-making process. Transparent and honest disclosures contribute to preserving the journal's scientific rigor and credibility. When reviewers are free from conflicts, they are better able to provide thorough, constructive, and unbiased feedback on the quality of the research.
2. Reviewers Guidelines
Beyond COI disclosures, reviewers also play a critical role in ensuring the ethical conduct of research. They must be vigilant about spotting instances of research misconduct, such as:
- Plagiarism: Identifying if parts of the manuscript have been copied or if the work lacks proper attribution.
- Data Fabrication: Assessing whether the data presented in the manuscript appear to be falsified or manipulated.
- Ethical Approval: Ensuring that the research follows ethical guidelines, particularly when human participants or animals are involved.
