Reviewer Conflict of Interest

A reviewer conflict of interest (COI) is any financial, professional, academic, institutional, personal, or intellectual relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the reviewer’s independence and impartiality. The Celebes Nursing Journal (CNJ) requires reviewers to disclose all actual, potential, or perceived conflicts before accepting a review assignment and whenever a relevant conflict becomes apparent during the review process.

This policy is informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the ICMJE Recommendations on Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process.

1. Types of Reviewer Conflicts of Interest
The following examples are illustrative and not exhaustive.

Financial or Commercial Conflicts

• Employment, consultancy, honoraria, advisory roles, or other financial relationships with an organization that may benefit or be disadvantaged by the manuscript;
• Research funding or other financial support directly related to the manuscript’s subject;
• Ownership of stocks, equity, patents, intellectual property rights, or other relevant financial interests; or
• Involvement in commercial, legal, regulatory, or advocacy activities directly related to the manuscript.

Academic or Professional Conflicts

• Current or recent research collaboration or co-authorship with an author;
• Direct academic, professional, or research competition;
• Involvement in substantially overlapping research that could reasonably affect impartiality;
• A supervisory, mentoring, examination, employment, or dependent professional relationship with an author;
• Participation in the research, preparation, or prior substantive evaluation of the manuscript; or
• A significant professional or intellectual dispute with an author.

Institutional Conflicts

• Current employment or appointment at the same institution, department, research center, or closely affiliated organization as an author;
• A recent institutional relationship that could reasonably affect impartiality; or
• An institutional interest in the acceptance, rejection, findings, or implications of the manuscript.

Personal or Intellectual Conflicts

• A close personal, family, or other significant relationship with an author;
• Personal hostility, a significant dispute, or another relationship that may affect objective judgment;
• A strongly held personal, political, religious, ideological, or professional position that prevents impartial evaluation; or
• A public commitment to a particular conclusion or competing position that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the review.

2. Reviewer Disclosure Responsibilities
Reviewers must:

• Assess potential conflicts before accepting a review invitation;
• Disclose relevant relationships or circumstances promptly and with sufficient detail for the editor to assess their significance;
• Decline the assignment when they know that impartial evaluation cannot reasonably be assured;
• Seek guidance from the editor when uncertain whether a relationship or circumstance constitutes a relevant conflict;
• Stop the review and notify the editor immediately if a conflict becomes apparent after accepting the assignment; and
• Not conceal a conflict or proceed on the assumption that the editor is already aware of it.

Disclosure does not automatically disqualify a reviewer in every circumstance. When the significance of a potential or perceived conflict is uncertain, the reviewer should disclose it and allow the editor to determine whether the assignment may proceed.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review
Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of manuscripts undergoing double-blind peer review. If an author’s identity becomes known or can reasonably be inferred during the review, the reviewer should not investigate further. If that knowledge reveals a relevant conflict of interest or could affect impartiality, the reviewer must notify the editor promptly and await further instructions.

4. Editorial Assessment and Management
The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor will assess disclosed conflicts according to their nature, relevance, timing, and potential effect on the integrity or perceived fairness of the review. The editor may:

• Determine that the disclosed circumstance does not prevent an impartial review;
• Request additional information from the reviewer;
• Assign the manuscript to another qualified independent reviewer;
• Discontinue an ongoing review assignment;
• Disregard a review affected by an undisclosed or significant conflict;
• Obtain an additional independent review; or
• Take other proportionate editorial action in accordance with CNJ policies.

If a significant conflict is identified after a review has been submitted, the editor will assess whether the review can remain part of the editorial record or whether additional independent evaluation is required. Reviewer disclosures will be handled confidentially and used for editorial assessment of the reviewer’s suitability and independence.

5. Confidentiality and Communication
Reviewers must not contact authors directly concerning a conflict of interest or the content of the manuscript. All disclosures and related communications must be submitted confidentially to the handling editor through the journal’s authorized editorial channels.

Reviewers must continue to protect manuscript confidentiality regardless of whether they accept, decline, discontinue, or complete the review assignment.

6. Related CNJ Policies
Reviewer conflicts of interest are managed together with CNJ’s broader requirements concerning reviewer independence, confidentiality, and ethical conduct. Reviewers should also comply with the journal’s Reviewer Ethics, Reviewer Guidelines, Peer Review Policy, and journal-wide Conflict of Interest Policy.