Reviewer Code of Conduct
Purpose
Peer review is central to maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publishing. Reviewers play an essential role in supporting authors, editors, and the broader academic community.
This Code of Conduct establishes the expectations and responsibilities of reviewers for the International Public Management Review (IPMR).
Professional Responsibility
Reviewers shall:
- accept review assignments only when they possess appropriate expertise
- conduct reviews objectively and professionally
- provide fair, constructive, and evidence-based assessments
- contribute to improving the quality of submitted manuscripts.
Reviewers shall evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.
Reviewers shall:
- not share manuscripts with unauthorized persons
- not distribute manuscript content
- not discuss manuscripts publicly
- not use unpublished information for personal, professional, or financial advantage.
Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the review process.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
Examples include:
- personal relationships with authors
- professional collaborations
- institutional affiliations
- financial interests
- competitive relationships.
Reviewers with significant conflicts should decline the review invitation.
Objectivity and Respect
Reviews should be:
- respectful
- professional
- constructive
- evidence-based.
Reviewers should avoid:
- personal criticism
- discriminatory language
- inflammatory comments
- unsupported allegations.
Critiques should focus on the scholarly content of the manuscript.
Timeliness
Reviewers should complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
If circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers should promptly notify the editorial office.
Ethical Concerns
Reviewers are encouraged to alert editors when they identify possible:
- plagiarism
- duplicate publication
- data fabrication
- data falsification
- unethical research practices
- inappropriate authorship
- conflicts of interest.
Reviewers should provide supporting information whenever possible.
Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts or substantial portions of manuscripts into publicly available generative artificial intelligence systems.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content of their reviews.
The confidentiality of the peer-review process must be preserved at all times.
Integrity of the Review Process
Reviewers shall not attempt to influence editorial decisions through inappropriate means.
Reviewers shall not:
- seek personal benefit from the review process
- request unnecessary citations to their own work
- participate in peer-review manipulation schemes.
Compliance
Failure to comply with this Code of Conduct may result in removal from the journal’s reviewer pool and other appropriate editorial actions.
