Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
The Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health (JEPH) requires all peer reviewers to adhere to the ethical principles and professional standards outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are expected to contribute to a fair, independent, confidential, and constructive peer-review process that supports scientific quality and protects the integrity of the scholarly record.
Objectivity and Impartiality
Reviewers shall evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially, based on their scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, validity, and relevance to the journal's scope. Reviews must not be influenced by the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religious or political beliefs, personal characteristics, or other irrelevant considerations.
Professional and Constructive Feedback
Reviewers shall provide clear, respectful, and constructive comments supported by scientific arguments and relevant references where appropriate. Personal criticism, hostile language, discriminatory remarks, defamatory statements, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable. Feedback should focus on the manuscript and provide practical guidance to help authors improve their work.
Competence and Timeliness
Reviewers shall accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript and can complete the review within the agreed timeframe. Reviewers who lack the necessary expertise or cannot meet the deadline shall promptly inform the editor and decline the invitation or request an appropriate arrangement.
Declaration of Competing Interests
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests before accepting a review invitation. These may include financial, personal, professional, intellectual, collaborative, or competitive relationships that could affect impartiality. Reviewers who are uncertain whether a competing interest may affect their assessment should consult the editor before proceeding.
Confidentiality
Reviewers shall treat manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and all information obtained through peer review as confidential. They must not share manuscript content with unauthorized individuals, contact authors directly without editorial permission, or use unpublished information for personal, professional, or financial advantage. Reviewers must obtain the editor's permission before involving colleagues or other individuals in the review process.
Research and Publication Integrity
Reviewers shall notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, substantial overlap with previously published work, possible data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, or other potential ethical concerns. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially and supported by relevant evidence where available. Reviewers should avoid making unsupported accusations and allow the editor to assess the concerns appropriately.
Responsible Citation Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend additional references when these are genuinely relevant to the manuscript's scientific context, methodology, interpretation, or discussion. They must not request citations to their own work or that of their associates solely to increase citation counts, academic visibility, or journal metrics. Citation recommendations should be justified by scholarly relevance.
Responsible Use of Generative AI
Reviewers shall comply with JEPH policies on generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies. They must not upload confidential manuscripts or related materials to unauthorized AI tools or services that could compromise confidentiality, data protection, or intellectual property. Any permitted use of AI-assisted technologies must follow the journal's policies and must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment.
Accuracy of Reviewer Identity and Expertise
Reviewers shall provide accurate professional information and ensure that their identity, qualifications, and expertise are represented honestly. Impersonation, falsification of reviewer identity, and any attempt to manipulate the peer-review process are unacceptable.
Editorial Independence and Recommendations
Reviewers shall provide independent recommendations based on the scientific quality and suitability of the manuscript. They must not attempt to influence editorial decisions for personal, financial, competitive, or other inappropriate reasons. The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.
Accountability and Communication
Reviewers shall communicate promptly with the editorial team regarding review invitations, deadlines, competing interests, ethical concerns, or circumstances that may affect their ability to complete an assessment. Reviewers must not transfer or delegate a review assignment to another individual without prior permission from the editor.
All reviewers are expected to comply with these guidelines throughout the peer-review process and to uphold the principles of fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and research integrity in accordance with COPE guidance and JEPH editorial policies.
