International Peer Review

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions. Generally, the editor asks reviewers to treat authors and their work with the respect they deserve and to adhere to proper reviewing etiquette. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Editorial communications can also aid the author in enhancing the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Until the manuscript is published, the content, including the abstract, should remain confidential. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. We urge all our reviewers to respect the confidentiality of the review process and treat manuscripts as confidential documents. It is against our policy to disclose any aspect of the review process or the manuscript to anyone who is not directly involved.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Alertness to Ethical Issues.

The reviewer is expected to remain vigilant regarding potential ethical issues in the manuscript and promptly bring them to the editor’s attention, including any significant similarities or overlap with other published works of which the reviewer is personally aware. Any assertion that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported must be substantiated with the appropriate citation.

Authors are required to disclose previous publications and provide proper attribution, and IPMU takes copyright infringement and other publication practices very seriously. They conduct investigations into claims of plagiarism or misuse of published works to protect author rights. The journal is also committed to safeguarding their reputation from malpractice. If there are concerns about the ethics of the research, it is encouraged to raise them. Authors must disclose potential conflicts of interest, obtain necessary permissions, and acknowledge the funding body of their research. This aims to ensure the integrity of data and research results relating to other parties, thus maintaining honesty and ethics in research.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

This is important so that reviewers can objectively assess the manuscript. It is not considered a conflict of interest if the reviewer has previously reviewed for another journal, but if there are differences between the previous and current versions of the manuscript, the reviewer should inform the editorial office. Reviewers are also advised to comment on concerns over non-disclosure of author interest information. Transparency in identifying and handling conflicts of interest is expected in the manuscript review process.

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal peer review process

When reviewing a manuscript, researchers must treat it as confidential. Uploading the manuscript or any part of it into generative AI tools can violate authors’ confidentiality, proprietary rights, and potentially data privacy laws if the paper contains personally identifiable information.

This confidentiality extends to the peer review report itself. Even if used for language improvements, reviewers should avoid uploading their review into AI tools, as the report may contain sensitive information about the manuscript or its authors.

It is mandatory maintains high standards for peer review integrity. Reviewing a paper requires human judgment, as generative AI lacks the critical thinking and original assessment necessary. AI tools may generate incorrect or biased conclusions, and reviewers are responsible for their review’s content.