Reviewer Ethics
Upholding Ethical Standards in Peer Review
JCRELC expects all reviewers to adhere to the highest ethical standards. Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and quality of academic publishing. This page outlines the ethical responsibilities and standards expected of all peer reviewers.
The Journal of Creative Research in English Literature and Culture (JCRELC) follows the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for peer review ethics. All reviewers are expected to comply with these ethical standards and maintain the integrity of the review process.
1. Core Ethical Principles
Confidentiality
Protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and review process
Objectivity
Provide unbiased, fair, and evidence-based evaluations
Integrity
Maintain honesty and transparency in all review activities
Professionalism
Conduct reviews with respect, timeliness, and constructive feedback
COPE Compliance: JCRELC follows COPE guidelines for reviewer ethics. All reviewers are expected to familiarize themselves with these standards and comply with them.
2. Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process:
Confidentiality Requirements
- Do not share manuscripts with anyone
- Do not discuss manuscripts with others
- Do not upload manuscripts to AI tools
- Delete manuscripts after review completion
- Maintain anonymity throughout the review process
- Do not use unpublished information for personal advantage
Confidentiality Scope
- Manuscript content and data
- Author identities (in double-blind review)
- Reviewer identities (protected from authors)
- Editorial communications and decisions
- Review reports and evaluations
- Any supplementary materials
Important: Breach of confidentiality is a serious ethical violation and may result in removal from the reviewer pool and notification to the Editor-in-Chief.
3. Objectivity & Fairness
Objectivity Standards
- Provide unbiased, evidence-based judgments
- Evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit alone
- Avoid personal bias or prejudice
- Do not be influenced by author demographics
- Avoid personal criticism of authors
- Support claims with evidence and references
Biases to Avoid
- Institutional Bias: Bias based on author's institution
- Geographic Bias: Bias based on author's country
- Gender Bias: Bias based on author's gender
- Language Bias: Bias against non-native English
- Paradigm Bias: Bias against different methodologies
- Personal Bias: Bias based on personal relationships
4. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest:
Types of Conflicts
- Recent collaboration with authors (past 5 years)
- Direct academic competition
- Personal relationships with authors
- Financial interests in research outcomes
- Institutional affiliations with authors
- Supervisory or mentoring relationships
- Co-authorship on other publications
Conflict Management
- Decline review invitations if conflicts exist
- Disclose any potential conflicts to the editor
- Recuse yourself from reviews with conflicts
- Notify the editor if conflicts arise during review
- Do not use review to advantage/disadvantage authors
Important: Failure to disclose conflicts of interest may result in removal from the reviewer database and reporting to COPE.
5. Timeliness & Professionalism
Timeliness Standards
- Respond to review invitations promptly
- Complete reviews within agreed timeframe (14 days)
- Notify the editor immediately if unable to meet deadlines
- Request extensions if needed (with valid reason)
- Withdraw from review if unable to complete on time
Professional Standards
- Maintain professional tone in all communications
- Use respectful language in review reports
- Provide constructive, actionable feedback
- Avoid emotional or inflammatory language
- Follow journal's review format and guidelines
- Decline reviews outside your expertise area
6. Constructive Feedback
Reviewers should provide constructive, detailed feedback to help authors improve their work:
Best Practices
- Identify strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript
- Provide specific, actionable suggestions for improvement
- Explain the reasoning behind your recommendations
- Suggest relevant literature to consult
- Offer suggestions for methodological improvements
- Recommend how to strengthen arguments or analysis
What to Avoid
- Vague or unsubstantiated criticism
- Personal attacks or condescending language
- Requesting unnecessary or irrelevant changes
- Focusing only on minor issues
- Failing to acknowledge good work
- Overly harsh or dismissive feedback
Reviewer Responsibility: The goal of peer review is to improve the quality of research. Reviewers should approach manuscripts with a constructive, developmental mindset.
7. Prohibited Practices
Strictly Prohibited
- Sharing manuscripts with anyone
- Uploading manuscripts to AI tools (ChatGPT, etc.)
- Copying manuscripts for personal use
- Contacting authors directly
- Using unpublished information for personal advantage
- Intentionally delaying reviews
- Plagiarizing from manuscripts under review
- Revealing author identities (in double-blind review)
Consequences
- Immediate Removal: Removed from reviewer database
- Notification: Editor-in-Chief and publisher notified
- Institutional Reporting: Author's institution may be notified
- COPE Reporting: Serious violations reported to COPE
- Banning: Permanent ban from reviewing for JCRELC
- Legal Action: Potential legal consequences for serious breaches
Note: These prohibited practices apply to all reviewers and are non-negotiable. Violations will result in immediate action.
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Policies
Questions About Reviewer Ethics?
If you have any questions about reviewer ethics, conflict of interest, or ethical concerns, please contact our editorial office.
+91-7665235235
Please include "Reviewer Ethics Query" in your email subject line for faster response.
Commit to Ethical Reviewing
Uphold the highest standards of ethical peer review. Join our community of reviewers committed to academic integrity and excellence.