Peer Reviewer Code of Conduct
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly integrity. United Frontiers Publisher (UFP) expects all invited reviewers to evaluate manuscripts in an objective, timely, and highly ethical manner, adhering strictly to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
01 Ethical Core & Professional Responsibility
02 Reviewer Selection Criteria
03 Confidentiality (Strict Requirement)
04 Conflicts of Interest (CoI) for Reviewers
05 Objectivity and Professional Etiquette
06 Prohibited Citation Manipulation
07 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy
08 Reporting Ethical Concerns
1. Ethical Core & Professional Responsibility
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly integrity. United Frontiers Publisher (UFP) expects all invited reviewers to evaluate manuscripts in an objective, timely, and highly ethical manner, adhering strictly to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
2. Reviewer Selection Criteria
To maintain the scientific soundness of our journals, individuals invited to review must meet the following baseline metrics:
Academic Qualifications — Hold a PhD (or equivalent terminal degree) or have a highly verifiable track record of expertise in the specific subject area.
Institutional Affiliation — Must hold an active, recognized academic or research institution affiliation.
Verifiable Profile — Possess a transparent publication record traceable via Scopus, Web of Science, or ORCID.
3. Confidentiality (Strict Requirement)
Manuscripts under review are privileged, legally confidential documents.
No Sharing — Reviewers must not disclose, share, or discuss any part of a submitted manuscript with colleagues, students, or third parties without explicit, written permission from the journal editor.
Intellectual Property — Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using unpublished data, arguments, or insights from a manuscript for their own personal, financial, or academic gain.
Post-Review — All manuscript files must be deleted or securely disposed of after the review report is submitted.
4. Conflicts of Interest (CoI) for Reviewers
Reviewers must actively protect the objectivity of the evaluation. An invited reviewer must decline the invitation if any of the following apply:
Institutional Overlap — They currently work at the same institution as any of the authors (or are currently interviewing/applying there).
Recent Collaboration — They have been a co-author, mentor, mentee, or joint grant holder with any of the authors within the past three (3) years.
Direct Competition — They are currently preparing, or have under consideration, a manuscript that is highly similar to the one they are asked to review.
Note: If a conflict is discovered after accepting the review, the reviewer must notify the editor immediately and step down.
5. Objectivity and Professional Etiquette
Reviews must be constructive, honest and respectful.
No Personal Attacks — Constructive criticism should focus entirely on the science, methodology, and data presentation. Hostile, derogatory, or culturally insensitive comments are strictly prohibited.
Substantiated Claims — Statements declaring that “this work has been done before” must be backed up by the reviewer providing the appropriate literature citations.
6. Prohibited Citation Manipulation
UFP takes citation ethics very seriously.
Reviewers must not request or coerce authors to cite the reviewer’s own publications (or those of their close associates/journals) unless there is a profound, undeniable scientific justification.
Any suggested citation must include a clear, written rationale to the editor. The editor reserves the right to delete coercive citation suggestions from the final report sent to authors.
7. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy
UFP maintains strict boundaries around the use of AI tools during peer review:
Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts, abstracts, or any portion of a submission into generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT) to write peer-review reports.
Uploading a manuscript to a public AI model violates the confidentiality clause and compromises the intellectual property of the authors.
8. Reporting Ethical Concerns
If, during the reading of a manuscript, a reviewer suspects or discovers evidence of:
Plagiarism or text recycling,
Fabricated or falsified data.
Redundant/duplicate publication (the paper is already published elsewhere),
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
They must not confront the authors directly. Instead, they must notify the handling Editor immediately via the confidential “Comments to the Editor” section so the publisher can initiate a formal COPE-aligned investigation.