Guidelines for Ethical and Professional Conduct in JIDA Peer Review

Peer review plays a fundamental role in maintaining the integrity, quality, and credibility of scholarly research. Reviewers serve as essential gatekeepers in the academic publishing process, ensuring that research contributions meet the highest standards of rigor and ethical responsibility. The following principles outline the ethical and professional obligations of reviewers to foster fairness, transparency, and excellence in the peer-review process.

1. Accepting Review Requests

Reviewers should accept an invitation to review only if they have the requisite expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. They must assess whether they possess the necessary knowledge and analytical skills to provide a thorough and constructive evaluation. Additionally, reviewers must consider their availability and ensure that they can complete the review within the prescribed deadline. If a reviewer is unable to fulfill these criteria, they should promptly decline the invitation, allowing the editorial team to seek alternative reviewers in a timely manner.

2. Maintaining Confidentiality and Integrity

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the JIDA peer-review process. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or share any details of the manuscript, its content, or their assessment with anyone outside of the editorial team. Unauthorized dissemination of the manuscript or review comments constitutes a serious ethical violation. Furthermore, reviewers must refrain from using any information from the manuscript for their own research, financial, or professional gain. The privileged knowledge acquired through peer review must be handled with the highest level of integrity and discretion.

3. Addressing Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must identify and disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may compromise their objectivity in evaluating the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may arise due to professional relationships, institutional affiliations, financial interests, or prior collaborations with the authors. If any such conflicts exist, reviewers must communicate them to the editorial team before proceeding with the review. In cases of uncertainty, reviewers should seek guidance from the editorial office to determine whether they should continue evaluating the manuscript.

4. Providing Objective and Constructive Feedback

The primary responsibility of a reviewer is to provide an impartial and scholarly assessment of the manuscript. Comments should be well-reasoned, specific, and constructive, helping authors enhance the clarity, coherence, and validity of their work. Reviewers should avoid making personal, disparaging, or biased remarks, as such language undermines the integrity of the review process. Instead, feedback should focus on substantive issues, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical research practices.

5. Ensuring Fairness and Avoiding Bias

Reviewers must evaluate submissions in a fair and unbiased manner, ensuring that their assessment is based solely on the quality of the research. They must not allow factors such as nationality, gender, religion, race, institutional affiliations, or personal opinions about the authors to influence their judgment. The review process should uphold the principles of inclusivity and equity, fostering a research environment that is free from discrimination or prejudice.

6. Timely and Responsible Participation

Peer review operates within specific timelines to facilitate efficient manuscript processing. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations promptly to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process. If unforeseen circumstances arise, preventing timely completion of the review, reviewers should inform the editorial team immediately. Moreover, reviewers should recognize that their contributions are part of a reciprocal academic practice; by actively participating in peer review, they contribute to the advancement of scholarly discourse.