Conflicts of Interest

Identification, disclosure, and management of interests

This policy covers actual, potential, and perceived interests of authors, reviewers, editors, and committee members. It includes financial, employment, personal, academic, institutional, political, or intellectual relationships reasonably connected to the manuscript.

Disclosure does not determine rejection. It enables the editor to assess risk and use recusal, replacement, independent handling, or publication of information. Deliberate nondisclosure is an integrity concern.

Duty to disclose

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial, employment, academic, personal, institutional, or ideological interests that may influence or appear to influence their work.

Management

A conflict does not automatically require rejection, but it requires transparency and safeguards. A conflicted editor recuses themself; a reviewer is replaced; and author disclosures are published with the article.

Nondisclosure

Undisclosed conflicts may suspend review. If discovered after publication, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction depending on their effect on the article’s integrity.

Scope of disclosure

Any relationship reasonably perceived as capable of influencing the work must be disclosed: employment, consultancy, fees, financial holdings, patents, funding, academic competition, recent collaboration, supervision, family relationship, litigation, activism, or beliefs directly connected to the topic. An interest is not misconduct; concealment prevents proper assessment of independence.

Authors submit individual disclosures at submission and update them if circumstances change before publication. They also identify the funder’s role in design, data collection, analysis, writing, and the decision to publish. If no conflict exists, an explicit statement of absence is included.

Management during review

The handling editor reviews disclosures and establishes safeguards. A reviewer with recent collaboration, dependency, direct competition, or a financial interest must decline. A conflicted editor recuses themself completely, and another editor records and makes the decision.

Recusal also applies to submissions from editorial-board members or persons affiliated with entities linked to the journal. Such submissions receive no preference and are handled independently, without author-editor access to reports or decision making.

Publication and correction

Relevant disclosures are published visibly with the article. The journal may request more information but avoids disclosing personal data unnecessary to understand the interest. Funding is reported separately to distinguish financial support from conflicts.

A later-discovered omission is assessed for intent and effect. If transparency is sufficient, a correction is issued; if the hidden interest compromised review or reliability, an expression of concern, retraction, or other ethical measure may follow.

Managing disclosed interests

Request individual disclosure at submission and confirmation before publication.

Report funding and the funder’s role in a separate statement.

Require reviewers to disclose conflicts before accessing the manuscript.

Recuse a conflicted editor and transfer the file without their involvement.

Publish relevant disclosures with the article.

Investigate later omissions and correct the record according to their effect.

Information needed to resolve conflicts

Dated author, reviewer, and editor disclosures.

Records of recusals, replacements, and the decision maker.

Visible conflict and funding statements in the article.

Correspondence and a correction notice when an omission is found.

Effective recusal and decision trail

An editor identifying relationships that could undermine the appearance of impartiality shall document the disclosure before taking substantive decisions. Editorial leadership shall appoint an unconflicted handler and record the reassignment, access restrictions, and rationale; the recused individual shall neither assess reports nor approve the affected manuscript.

Handling conflicts identified later

The editorial committee annually reviews recusals and omissions for consistent application. Disclosable relationships are assessed by proximity, recency, significance, and reasonable capacity to influence rather than by a closed list.

Academic dependency and organizational risks

Particular attention is given to supervisor–doctoral student, thesis director–candidate, department head–subordinate faculty, grant assessor–funded researcher and editor–frequent collaborator relationships. A generic declaration of no conflict does not replace assessment of relationships affecting review of research about the reviewer’s own institution or policies.

Recusal includes OJS access restrictions and assignment to an independent academic editor. Research evaluating ISICM decisions or co-publisher services cannot be handled or accepted by persons directly responsible for the activities being studied.

Conflicts arising from university hierarchies

Supervisor–student, grant assessor–researcher, manager–staff, recent coauthor and relevant personal relationships must be declared whenever independence might be affected. The editor assesses whether recusal, reviewer replacement or reassignment is necessary. Merely filing a disclosure does not allow a conflicted person to continue handling the same manuscript without risk assessment.

Editorial-team members as authors

When an editor-in-chief, section editor or board member is an author or coauthor, they lose access to decision-making functions in the submission. An independent academic editor selects conflict-free reviewers and makes a reasoned decision. The published article may include a transparent note on recusal and independent handling without disclosing confidential reviewer information.