ACS Publisher

Reviewer Bias or Competitive Harmful Acts by Reviewers

Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers involve unethical behaviors that compromise the objectivity and fairness of the peer review process. Such actions can undermine the credibility of the publication process and harm the integrity of scientific research. ISRR is committed to addressing these issues rigorously and ensuring that all reviews are conducted impartially and ethically.

Definitions

  1. Reviewer Bias: When a reviewer allows personal beliefs, relationships, or conflicts of interest to influence their evaluation of a manuscript.
  2. Competitive Harmful Acts: When a reviewer deliberately provides unfairly negative reviews or delays the review process to benefit their own work or the work of their associates.

Handling Allegations of Reviewer Bias or Competitive Harmful Acts

Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation of reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to determine the nature and scope of the complaint. This involves:

  1. Reviewing the Allegation: Examining the specifics of the complaint to understand the type of alleged misconduct.
  2. Gathering Initial Information: Collecting preliminary information from the complainant, including relevant documents, communications, and evidence supporting the allegation.

The initial assessment helps establish whether the complaint warrants a formal investigation.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Throughout the process, confidentiality will be maintained to protect the identities of all parties involved. If the complainant wishes to remain anonymous, ISRR will respect this request while ensuring a fair and thorough investigation.

Notification and Response

If the initial assessment indicates that the allegation warrants further investigation, the following steps will be taken:

  1. Notification of Relevant Parties: The reviewer in question will be informed about the allegation and requested to provide a response within a specified timeframe.
  2. Communication with Authors and Other Reviewers: The authors of the manuscript and any other reviewers involved will be notified of the allegation and asked to provide their perspectives and any relevant documentation.

The goal of this step is to gather comprehensive information from all parties involved to understand the circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct.

Formation of an Investigation Committee

To ensure an impartial and thorough investigation, a committee of experts with no conflicts of interest in the case will be formed. This committee will be responsible for reviewing all evidence and making a determination regarding the allegation.

Evidence Collection

The investigation committee will gather all relevant documents, communications, and data related to the allegation. This may involve:

  1. Reviewing Review Reports: Examining the review reports submitted by the reviewer in question to identify any signs of bias or harmful acts.
  2. Comparing Review Timelines: Analyzing the timelines of the review process to detect any unusual delays that might suggest competitive harmful acts.
  3. Collecting Statements: Requesting detailed statements from all involved parties, including the reviewer, the authors, and other reviewers, describing their perspectives on the review process.
  4. Examining Correspondence: Reviewing email communications and other correspondence between the reviewer, the authors, and the editorial office to understand the interactions and decision-making process.

Decision-Making Process

The investigation committee will review all collected evidence and statements to determine the validity of the allegation. The decision-making process includes:

  1. Evaluation of Evidence: Assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence presented. This involves cross-referencing review reports, analyzing review timelines, and reviewing correspondence to verify the presence of bias or harmful acts.
  2. Consensus Building: Reaching a consensus on whether the allegation is substantiated or unsubstantiated. The committee will consider the extent and nature of the alleged misconduct.
  3. Recommendation of Actions: Recommending appropriate actions based on the findings, which may include corrections to the review process, reassigning the manuscript to a new reviewer, or other measures.

Communication of Findings

The findings of the investigation will be communicated to all relevant parties, including the complainant, the reviewer, and the authors. This communication will include:

  1. Summary of Findings: Providing a detailed summary of the investigation's findings and the rationale for the decision.
  2. Recommended Actions: Describing any recommended actions and the steps that will be taken to implement them. This may include issuing corrections to the review process or reassigning the manuscript to a new reviewer.
  3. Appeal Process: Informing the parties about the process for appealing the decision, if applicable.

Implementation of Actions

The recommended actions will be implemented promptly to address the allegation and prevent future occurrences. This may involve:

  1. Corrections to the Review Process: Making corrections to the review process if necessary. This ensures that the review history is accurate and transparent.
  2. Reassigning Manuscripts: Reassigning the manuscript to a new reviewer if the original reviewer's actions are found to be biased or harmful.
  3. Policy Changes: Implementing changes to editorial policies or procedures to prevent similar issues in the future. This may include revising guidelines on reviewer conduct and conflict of interest disclosures.
  4. Disciplinary Actions: Taking disciplinary actions against individuals found to have engaged in biased or harmful review practices. This may include removing the reviewer from the journal's reviewer pool and banning them from future reviewing activities.

Public Notification

In cases where the misconduct significantly affects the integrity of the review process, a public notification may be issued. This notification will inform the academic community about the misconduct and the actions taken to address it. The notification will be published in an appropriate section of the journal to ensure transparency and accountability.

Institutional Notification

The institutions affiliated with the reviewer involved in the misconduct will be informed about the findings and actions taken. This step ensures that the institutions are aware of the issue and can take appropriate measures to address it within their own policies and procedures.

Documentation and Reporting

All steps of the investigation process will be thoroughly documented to ensure transparency and accountability. This documentation includes:

  1. Records of Communication: Keeping detailed records of all communications related to the allegation. This includes emails, letters, and meeting notes.
  2. Investigation Reports: Maintaining comprehensive reports of the investigation findings and decisions. These reports will be stored securely and may be referenced in future cases to ensure consistency in handling allegations.
  3. Annual Reporting: Including summaries of allegations and their resolutions in annual reports to the journal's editorial board. This helps to monitor trends in reviewer bias and competitive harmful acts and evaluate the effectiveness of the journal's policies and procedures.

Prevention and Education

To prevent reviewer bias and competitive harmful acts and promote ethical review practices, ISRR will implement educational initiatives for reviewers and editors. These initiatives may include:

  1. Workshops on Ethical Reviewing: Conducting workshops and seminars on the importance of ethical review practices and how to avoid bias and competitive harmful acts. These workshops will provide guidance on maintaining objectivity and fairness in the review process.
  2. Guidelines and Resources: Providing clear guidelines and resources on ethical review practices on the journal's website. This includes detailed explanations of common forms of reviewer bias and best practices for conducting impartial reviews.
  3. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Ensuring that all reviewers disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. This helps to identify and manage conflicts that could influence the review process.

Continuous Improvement

ISRR is committed to continuously improving its policies and procedures for handling allegations. Regular reviews of the guidelines and feedback from the academic community will be used to refine and enhance the process. This ensures that the journal maintains the highest standards of integrity and transparency in the review and publication process.