A conflict of interest is any relationship or interest that could reasonably be seen to affect your judgment of a manuscript, whether or not it actually does. The test is not whether you believe you can be fair. It is whether an informed outsider — an author, another reviewer, a reader — could reasonably doubt your impartiality if the relationship became known. Because review at Peer Academics is double-anonymous, the journal cannot detect most of these situations. Declaring them is your responsibility.
What counts as a conflict
Personal and professional relationships. You have a conflict if, in relation to any author you believe to be involved, you are or recently were a co-author, supervisor or supervisee, colleague in the same department or institution, collaborator on a grant or project, close friend, family member, or partner — or if there is a personal dispute, rivalry, or history of antagonism between you. The journal treats co-authorship or shared institutional affiliation within the past three years as a conflict by default.
Financial and commercial interests. You have a conflict if you, or a close family member, hold shares, patents, consultancies, paid advisory roles, employment, honoraria, or other payments that could gain or lose value depending on whether the manuscript is published or on what it concludes.
Competing work. You have a conflict if you have a manuscript in preparation, under review, or recently published that addresses the same question and would be advantaged by delaying or discouraging this one. A general overlap of research interests is not a conflict; that overlap is usually why you were invited.
Intellectual and other commitments. Strong prior public commitment to a position the manuscript attacks, involvement as an adviser, funder, or officer in the program, policy, institution, or organization under study, or a role in the events the manuscript analyzes can all create a conflict. So can any obligation — legal, contractual, or confidentiality-related — that would prevent you from writing freely about the work.
What is not a conflict
Working in the same field, disagreeing with the manuscript's conclusions, having reviewed an earlier version of the same work for another journal, or having met an author at a conference are not in themselves conflicts. Disagreement is a reason to write a careful critical report, not to decline. If you have reviewed the manuscript before for another journal, say so in your confidential comments; the editor decides whether that matters.
How to declare
- At the invitation. The invitation shows the title and abstract. If you already know or suspect a conflict, decline and say briefly why, or write to [email protected] if you are unsure. You may name alternative reviewers.
- During the review. Anonymization is imperfect. If, while reading, you work out or strongly suspect who the authors are and that creates a conflict, stop and tell the editor rather than finish the report and mention it afterwards.
- In the review form. Part F of the form asks you to confirm that you have no undeclared conflict. Use it to disclose anything the editor should weigh, including a relationship you judge not to be disqualifying. Disclosure is not an admission; it lets the editor decide.
Declare to the editor, never to the authors. Do not put identifying information about yourself in the parts of the form that reach the authors.
When to decline outright
Decline, rather than disclose and continue, whenever a relationship falls into the first two categories above — close personal or institutional ties, or a financial interest in the outcome — and whenever you would find it difficult to recommend rejection or acceptance for reasons unrelated to the manuscript's quality. Decline also if you cannot meet the deadline or lack the expertise; those are not conflicts, but they are equally good reasons to say no. Declining costs the journal a short delay. A compromised review costs the authors much more.
What the editor does
The editor decides whether a declared interest disqualifies you. They may release you from the assignment, accept your report while weighing it alongside others, or ask for a further reviewer without a comparable interest. Where the disclosure reveals that the manuscript's own conflict-of-interest declarations look incomplete, the editor raises that with the authors.
Editors are bound by the same principles: an editor with a conflict on a manuscript hands it to another editor and takes no part in the decision, as set out on the Editorial Board page.
If a conflict is concealed
An undisclosed conflict that comes to light is treated as a breach of the journal's reviewer obligations. The editor may discard your report, re-review the manuscript, revisit a decision already taken, remove you from the reviewer pool, and, where the concealment caused demonstrable harm to the authors, inform your institution. If an article has already been published when the concealment comes to light, the journal will correct the public record.
This policy is informed by the principles of COPE and ICMJE. Peer Academics is not a member of either organization.