Ethics for Editors and Reviewers

Editorial Responsibilities and Ethics

The Editor has the responsibility to make decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts, in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and AIPP standards for research integrity and publication ethics. The Editor may confer with associate editors or reviewers for an evaluation to use in making this decision.

The Editor should give prompt and unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors, and respecting the intellectual independence of the authors. To prevent bias in editorial decision-making, any situations that may lead to real or perceived conflicts of interest must be avoided.

The Editor and the editorial staff must not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s own research except with the consent of the author.

It is an Editor’s responsibility to respond to reported concerns in accordance with COPE guidelines and AIPP policies and to protect the anonymity of individuals raising concerns. The Editor should flag any situation that might undermine the integrity of the scholarly record, such as ethical misconduct during peer review or concerns raised post-publication, so that the Publisher can provide support with the investigation and response to ethics and integrity issues. An Editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should promote the publication of a correction or retraction in a timely fashion to mitigate the impact on the scientific record.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

Peer review by independent researchers provides critical advice to editors of scientific journals concerning the validity and significance of submitted manuscripts. It is a foundational element of scholarly publishing, and all qualified researchers are encouraged to contribute to the process as part of their professional responsibilities.

Reviewers are expected to perform the review of the work themselves, unless they are participating in co-review. Submitting a review in the name of another person (real or fictional) is a form of misconduct, and AIPP has the right to request proof of identity in cases where identity fraud or impersonation is alleged or suspected.

Privileged information or ideas obtained during peer review must be kept strictly confidential and must not be used for competitive gain. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including competitive, collaborative, or personal relationships with the authors. If a conflict arises at any point during the review process, the reviewer must inform the editor immediately and recuse themselves from the review.

Reviewers should

  • Provide a fair objective judgement of the quality of the research reported, respect the intellectual independence of the authors, and explain and support their judgments in such a way that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments and review.
  • Maintain a professional and collegial tone and refrain from personal criticisms.
  • Identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors: any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  • Inform the editor of any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
  • Inform the editor if they suspect research or publication misconduct, such as unethical treatment of humans or animals, inappropriate image manipulation, or violations of data privacy.
  • Treat the manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should not be shared or discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
  • Focus on the soundness of the science being reported, whether the AI use disclosure matches the manuscript content and conforms to AIPP’s AI Policy, as well as the journal’s acceptance criteria and any specific editorial policies for appropriate AI disclosure. Any integrity concerns, such as inappropriate terminology or fabricated references, should be communicated to the editor in the confidential comments.

Reviewers must not

  • Use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.
  • Suggest irrelevant or unnecessary citations. When recommending a reference, reviewers should provide a detailed explanation for why the reference would substantially benefit the scientific content of the manuscript.
  • Upload submitted manuscripts and/or peer review reports into third-party AI tools not provided by the publisher, such as chatbots or tools that detect AI-generated content, as this compromises confidentiality and may violate data protection standards.