Reviewer Ethics & Responsibilities
Reviewer Ethics Pledge
By accepting a review invitation for IJOER, reviewers commit to upholding the highest ethical standards as outlined in this document. Violation of these ethical guidelines may result in removal from the reviewer database and notification to affiliated institutions.
Ethics Navigation
1. Core Ethical Principles for Reviewers
Confidentiality
Treat manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or use content without authorization.
Impartiality
Declare all conflicts of interest. Recuse yourself if bias exists. Judge solely on scholarly merit.
Timeliness
Complete reviews within agreed timeframe. Decline if unable to meet deadlines.
Constructiveness
Provide specific, actionable feedback that helps authors improve their work.
2. Confidentiality Obligations
Core Principle: The peer review process is confidential. Reviewers must not disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone without prior authorization from the editor.
What You CAN Do
- Discuss the manuscript with the editor when necessary
- Consult colleagues for specific expertise (only with editor's permission)
- Keep records of your review for personal reference
- Use the manuscript only for the purpose of review
What You CANNOT Do
- Share the manuscript with unauthorized colleagues
- Upload the manuscript to any repository or AI tool
- Use manuscript content for personal research
- Discuss the manuscript publicly or on social media
- Contact the authors directly
3. Conflict of Interest (COI)
Reviewers must disclose any relationships or circumstances that could compromise their impartiality. A conflict of interest exists when personal, financial, or professional considerations may bias your evaluation.
| Type of Conflict | Examples |
|---|---|
| Personal Relationships | Current or recent collaborators, students, advisors, family members, close friends |
| Financial Interests | Stock ownership, patents, consulting fees, grants from entities that could benefit |
| Institutional Affiliations | Competing institutions, recent employer changes |
| Intellectual Bias | Strong disagreement with the manuscript's theoretical framework or methodology |
| Competitive Rivalry | Direct competition for funding, publications, or recognition |
4. Competence & Timeliness
Assess Your Competence
Accept review invitations only for manuscripts within your area of expertise. If you lack sufficient knowledge to provide a qualified evaluation:
- Decline the invitation promptly
- Suggest alternative reviewers if possible
- Do not accept and provide superficial reviews
Respect Deadlines
- Complete reviews within the specified timeframe (typically 2-3 weeks)
- If unable to meet deadlines, decline or request extension immediately
- Delayed reviews harm authors and the journal's reputation
- Chronic delays may result in removal from reviewer database
5. Objectivity & Fairness
Judge on Merit Alone
No Personal Bias
Constructive Feedback
Guidelines for Objective Reviewing:
- No discrimination: Do not discriminate based on author characteristics (nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, institution reputation)
- Evidence-based criticism: Support criticisms with specific evidence from the manuscript
- Acknowledge strengths: Identify both strengths and weaknesses of the work
- No ad hominem attacks: Critique the work, not the authors
- No request for unnecessary citations: Do not demand citations to your own work unless genuinely relevant
- Respect methodological diversity: Different approaches may be equally valid
6. Identifying Plagiarism & Research Misconduct
Reviewers play a crucial role in detecting potential ethical violations. Be vigilant for:
Plagiarism Indicators
- Unusual shifts in writing style or language proficiency
- Lack of citations for well-established facts
- Verbatim text from known sources without quotation marks
- Paraphrasing too close to original text
- Self-plagiarism (reusing author's own published work without citation)
Data & Image Manipulation
- Suspiciously perfect or identical data patterns
- Inconsistent figures or duplicate images
- Unrealistically low standard deviations
- Missing raw data or unclear methodology
- Inappropriate statistical analyses
Authorship Issues
- Gift or guest authorship (non-contributing authors)
- Ghost authorship (missing contributors)
- Inconsistent author contributions
- Disputed author order
Multiple Submission
- Substantially similar manuscripts published elsewhere
- Duplicate publication without cross-reference
- Translations without permission or acknowledgment
- Salami slicing (splitting one study into multiple papers)
7. Strictly Prohibited Actions
| Prohibited Action | Consequences |
|---|---|
| Using AI tools (ChatGPT, etc.) to generate reviews | Immediate removal, reporting to institution |
| Sharing manuscripts with unauthorized colleagues | Removal from reviewer database, potential legal action |
| Using manuscript content for personal research | Removal, plagiarism record, institutional notification |
| Contacting authors directly | Warning or removal depending on severity |
| Coercing authors to cite your work | Immediate removal, reporting to COPE |
| Deliberately delaying reviews without communication | Warning, then removal for repeated violations |
| Posting about manuscripts on social media | Removal, confidentiality breach record |
8. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices
IJOER follows COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. All reviewers should be familiar with these standards:
- Only agree to review if competent to do so
- Respond promptly and respect deadlines
- Declare all conflicts of interest
- Maintain confidentiality of the review process
- Provide a constructive, unbiased, and respectful review
- Alert the editor to any ethical concerns
- Do not use AI to write the review
- Do not allow personal criticism of authors
- Do not request unnecessary citations
- Do not share or use the manuscript for personal gain
9. Reporting Ethical Violations
What to Report
- Suspected plagiarism or data manipulation
- Unrevealed conflicts of interest
- Authorship disputes or irregularities
- Multiple or duplicate submissions
- Ethical concerns about research involving humans/animals
- Misconduct by other reviewers or editors
How to Report
Report ethical concerns confidentially to:
Editorial Office: info@ijoer.com
Editor-in-Chief: info.ijoer@gmail.com
All reports are handled confidentially and investigated promptly.
10. Frequently Asked Questions (Ethics)
11. Contact for Ethical Concerns
Ethics & Integrity Office
For reporting ethical concerns:
info@ijoer.com
Editor-in-Chief:
info.ijoer@gmail.com
Confidential hotline: +91-7665235235 (ext. 101)
Our Commitment to Ethical Review
IJOER is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics. We expect all reviewers to uphold these principles. Together, we maintain the integrity and quality of the engineering literature.
COPE Member Journal
IJOER is a proud member of the Committee on Publication Ethics
Verify Membership