Peer Review, Editorial Independence & Scholarly Communications Policy

Evaluate the work fairly. Protect editorial judgment from influence.

The JR Institute intends to support rigorous, transparent, and proportionate review while preserving the independence of editors and reviewers from donors, sponsors, executives, authors, and institutional pressure.

Developing Framework

This page presents a planned public standard. Final editorial boards, reviewer systems, conflict procedures, appeals, publication workflows, and independence safeguards should be established before reviewed publishing begins.

Policy Purpose

Review should improve the record without becoming a tool of prestige or control.

Peer review can identify weaknesses, improve clarity, test methods, and strengthen confidence in scholarly work.

It can also be distorted by conflicts, status, secrecy, ideology, competition, sponsor pressure, or misuse of confidential information.

Core Principles

Independence, competence, confidentiality, transparency, fairness, and accountability.

01

Editorial Independence

Publication decisions should rest with qualified editors rather than institutional leadership, donors, or sponsors.

02

Qualified Review

Select reviewers with relevant expertise, sufficient time, and no unmanaged conflict.

03

Confidentiality

Protect manuscripts, data, identities, deliberations, and unpublished ideas.

04

Constructive Evaluation

Focus review on evidence, methods, reasoning, clarity, and significance.

05

Transparent Status

Clearly distinguish preprints, moderated records, editor-reviewed work, and peer-reviewed publications.

06

Fair Appeals

Allow reconsideration of procedural errors, conflicts, bias, or significant factual misunderstanding.

Scope

This policy is intended to apply to journals, reviewed reports, conference proceedings, special collections, invited reviews, policy publications, technical series, and other outputs using editorial or peer review.

Editorial Independence

Editors should have authority to make publication decisions according to stated scope, quality, ethics, relevance, evidence, and review standards.

Trustees, officers, donors, sponsors, partners, and executives should not direct acceptance, rejection, delay, suppression, or favorable treatment of specific work.

Institutional ownership of a publication does not create a right to manipulate its editorial record.

Review Models and Disclosure

Publications may use single-anonymous, double-anonymous, open, transparent, editorial, community, or post-publication review.

The review model should be disclosed clearly, including whether reviewer identities, reports, decision letters, and author responses may become public.

Reviewer Selection and Qualification

Reviewers should be selected for subject expertise, methodological competence, independence, availability, and ability to provide a fair and constructive evaluation.

  • Avoid reliance on one professional network or viewpoint
  • Consider career-stage and geographic diversity where relevant
  • Do not use suggested reviewers without independent screening
  • Replace reviewers who cannot meet the expected timeline
  • Document unusual reviewer-selection decisions

Reviewer and Editor Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors should disclose financial, professional, personal, competitive, supervisory, collaborative, institutional, or ideological relationships that may affect impartiality.

A disclosed conflict may require recusal, independent oversight, an additional reviewer, or another documented safeguard.

Confidentiality and Use of Unpublished Material

Submitted manuscripts, data, figures, methods, ideas, and correspondence should be used only for the review process.

Reviewers and editors should not appropriate unpublished ideas, share materials without authorization, or use confidential information for personal, commercial, or competitive advantage.

Reviewer Conduct and Quality

Reviews should be specific, evidence-based, respectful, and focused on improving or evaluating the work.

Personal attacks, coercive citation, irrelevant ideological demands, undisclosed ghost review, retaliation, and intentionally obstructive review are inconsistent with this policy.

Editorial Decisions and Reasons

Decisions should identify the outcome, principal reasons, required changes, applicable standards, and any next step.

Editors may depart from reviewer recommendations when justified, but should document the reasoning for material departures.

Appeals, Complaints, and Reconsideration

Authors may request reconsideration based on procedural error, reviewer conflict, material factual misunderstanding, discrimination, or inconsistent application of policy.

An appeal is not a guarantee of a new review or acceptance. It should be considered by a qualified person who was not solely responsible for the original decision.

AI-Assisted Editorial and Review Activity

Editors and reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts or data into unapproved AI systems.

Material AI assistance in summarization, critique, language editing, screening, or decision support should be governed by confidentiality, accuracy, bias, security, and human-accountability requirements.

Final editorial responsibility must remain with an identifiable human decision-maker.

Framework date: July 2026

Editorial Review Lifecycle

Screen, assign, review, decide, publish, and correct.

  • Screen. Confirm scope, minimum requirements, ethics, conflicts, and review readiness.
  • Assign. Select qualified editors and reviewers without unmanaged conflicts.
  • Review. Evaluate methods, evidence, reasoning, clarity, limitations, and integrity.
  • Decide. Make an independent decision and explain the principal reasons.
  • Publish and correct. Preserve review status, disclosures, versions, appeals, and later corrections.
Editorial or Review Questions

Ask about reviewer conduct, conflicts, editorial independence, appeals, or publication status.

Inquiries may concern reviewer selection, confidentiality, bias, sponsor influence, editorial decisions, review models, appeals, AI use, or correction of the reviewed record.

Submit an Editorial Inquiry

Identify the publication, manuscript, decision stage, concern, deadline, and available supporting information.

Contact the Institute