Reviewer Competing Interest Guidelines

Reviewers of “Political Science and Security Studies Journal” should decline an invitation to review if they have a competing interest or conflict of interest related to the submitted manuscript. Such situations may include, but are not limited to, the examples listed below.

General Principle

A competing interest exists when personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, or other relationships may influence, or may reasonably be perceived to influence, the reviewer’s objectivity, independence, or impartiality.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation to review.

Examples of Potential Conflicts of Interest

1. Employment

  • the reviewer holds a position at the same institution as the author(s);
  • the reviewer is seeking employment at the same institution as the author(s);
  • the reviewer has recently held a position at the same institution as the author(s).

2. Financial Interests

  • the reviewer has ownership of equity, shares, or an enterprise that may benefit from publication;
  • the reviewer may directly or indirectly receive income as a result of publication;
  • the reviewer has financial relationships with organizations that may be affected by the publication of the manuscript.

3. Personal or Professional Relationships

  • the author is a family member, professional partner, business partner, supervisor, subordinate, or former PhD student of the reviewer;
  • the author has been a collaborator of the reviewer within the past 48 months;
  • the author has been a co-editor with the reviewer within the past 24 months;
  • the reviewer has a close personal relationship or serious personal disagreement with the author(s).

4. Academic and Competitive Interests

  • the reviewer is working on a very similar research topic and may gain a competitive advantage from access to the manuscript;
  • the reviewer has a direct academic dispute with the author(s);
  • the reviewer has previously reviewed the same manuscript for another journal and cannot provide an independent assessment.

5. Institutional or Editorial Relationships

  • the reviewer has an institutional relationship with the author’s organization that may affect impartiality;
  • the reviewer is involved in the same grant, project, research group, or editorial initiative as the author(s);
  • the reviewer has participated in preparing, advising, editing, or substantially discussing the submitted manuscript before submission.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are responsible for assessing whether any relationship or circumstance could compromise their impartiality. If there is uncertainty, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Office and allow the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board to decide whether the review may proceed.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal, professional, financial, or competitive advantage.

Editorial Assessment of Conflicts of Interest

The Editorial Office evaluates disclosed competing interests and decides whether the reviewer may continue the review. In cases where impartiality may reasonably be questioned, another reviewer will be appointed.

Failure to disclose a conflict of interest may be treated as reviewer misconduct and may result in exclusion from future reviewing activities for the journal.

Note: Reviewers must disclose any competing interest or conflict of interest if a reasonable person, having all relevant facts, could question their impartiality.