Review Ethics | Colloquys Publishing

Overview

The integrity of the peer-review process is fundamental to scholarly publishing. This publisher is committed to ensuring that peer review is conducted in a fair, objective, timely, and confidential manner. All reviewers are expected to adhere to recognized ethical standards and to conduct reviews with professionalism and academic responsibility.

Principles of Ethical Peer Review

Peer review must be based solely on the academic merit of the submitted work. Reviewers are required to evaluate manuscripts impartially, without regard to the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, race, religion, or political beliefs.

Core Commitment: Reviews should be constructive, evidence-based, and focused on improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript while maintaining respect for the authors and the scholarly process.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

Share manuscripts or related data with third parties
Use unpublished material for personal research or advantage
Discuss the content of the manuscript outside the review process

Confidentiality must be maintained before, during, and after the review process.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their assessment. Conflicts may arise from:

Personal & Professional Relationships

Close personal or professional relationships with the authors, including current or recent collaborations, shared institutional affiliations, or mentor-mentee relationships.

Financial Interests

Financial interests related to the research, including funding sources, patents, commercial products, or equity interests that could be affected by the manuscript's conclusions.

Competitive Connections

Competitive, collaborative, or institutional connections that could create bias, including working on directly competing research or having vested interest in specific outcomes.

Required Action: If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the review invitation.

Objectivity and Fairness

Reviews must be conducted objectively and supported by clear academic reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should:

Clearly identify strengths and weaknesses - Provide balanced evaluation of both positive contributions and areas requiring improvement
Support evaluations with relevant references - Back up assessments with citations to published literature where appropriate
Avoid biased or discriminatory language - Maintain professional, respectful tone free from personal attacks or prejudicial comments

Editorial decisions are based on the academic content of the review reports and not on personal opinions.

Timeliness

Commitment to Timely Review

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

Timely reviews contribute to an efficient and reliable publication process.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and other published or unpublished work must be reported confidentially to the editor.

This helps ensure proper attribution, prevents duplicate publication, and strengthens the scholarly integrity of the manuscript.

Ethical Concerns and Misconduct

Reviewers should alert the editor to any ethical concerns identified during review, including but not limited to:

Plagiarism

Unattributed use of text, ideas, data, or figures from other sources without proper citation or permission.

Data Fabrication or Falsification

Manipulation, fabrication, or falsification of research data, results, or images to support specific conclusions.

Redundant or Duplicate Publication

Publishing the same research findings in multiple venues without appropriate cross-referencing or disclosure.

Unethical Research Practices

Violations of research ethics including lack of informed consent, inadequate ethical approval, or violations of animal welfare standards.

Confidential Reporting: Such concerns must be communicated confidentially to the editor and supported with relevant evidence where possible.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential content to external artificial intelligence tools or platforms that store or reuse data. Any use of AI-assisted tools during the review process must comply with confidentiality requirements and must not compromise the integrity of the review.

AI Usage Guidelines: If AI tools are used for tasks such as grammar checking or literature search, they must be used in ways that preserve manuscript confidentiality and do not expose unpublished research to third-party systems.

Reviewer Accountability

Commitment Upon Accepting Review

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to:

Uphold these ethical principles - Commit to following all ethical guidelines and professional standards
Provide honest, constructive, and unbiased feedback - Deliver reviews that are truthful, helpful, and free from personal bias
Maintain confidentiality at all stages - Protect manuscript confidentiality before, during, and after the review process

Consequences: Failure to adhere to review ethics may result in removal from the reviewer database or other appropriate actions.

Alignment with Ethical Standards

International Standards Compliance

The publisher's review ethics are aligned with internationally recognized guidelines for peer review and publication ethics, including standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and other leading organizations.

These standards are applied consistently across all journals to safeguard the credibility and reliability of the scholarly record.