How do journals handle conflicts in peer review?

Journals implement formal procedures to manage conflicts of interest in peer review, primarily by requiring disclosure and proactively recusing conflicted reviewers or editors. This system ensures the evaluation process remains impartial and objective. Key principles involve mandatory disclosure of any potential conflicts by reviewers upon invitation and by authors during manuscript submission. Editors screen submissions for author conflicts and assess reviewer declarations. Necessary conditions include clear institutional policies defining conflicts (financial, professional, personal), transparent communication channels, and the editorial team's diligence. Precautions involve the immediate exclusion of reviewers with conflicts from the assessment process, maintaining reviewer anonymity where applicable to safeguard impartiality, and documented oversight procedures. The scope covers all submitted manuscripts and every stage involving editorial staff or peer reviewers. Practical implementation involves authors declaring potential conflicts upon submission via standard disclosure forms. During reviewer selection, editors check for conflicts using disclosed information and available databases (e.g., institutional affiliations, recent co-authorship). Invited reviewers must explicitly declare any potential conflict, prompting the editor to recuse them if necessary and find an alternative. This process protects the integrity of peer review, upholds the perceived fairness of the journal, safeguards publication quality, prevents reputational damage, and mitigates potential legal issues. Ultimately, robust conflict management is fundamental to maintaining trust in scholarly publishing.