1. Understand competing interests and recusal
A competing interest is a relationship or circumstance that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, an editorial action. Financial interests are only one category: recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, mentorship, personal relationships, professional rivalry and prior involvement in the work can also matter.
Disclosure makes a potential conflict visible but does not automatically resolve it. Editors should evaluate relevance to the particular manuscript, the person’s role and the extent of authority exercised before selecting a management action.
2. Identify interests at manuscript assignment
At assignment, consider relationships with all authors, relevant institutions, funders and subject matter. A declaration should be refreshed when new information emerges, because interests may become apparent only after reviewer selection or revision.
Do not rely exclusively on a standard annual declaration. Manuscript-specific assessment helps distinguish a remote connection from an active relationship that could materially affect judgment.
3. Distinguish disclosure, management and recusal
Disclosure records a relationship; management limits the influence it could exert; recusal removes the person from a specified editorial role. These actions serve different purposes and should not be used interchangeably.
Where a conflict is material or difficult to manage credibly, assign the manuscript to an independent editor. For lesser concerns, documented restrictions and independent oversight may be sufficient if permitted by policy.
4. Assess financial and commercial relationships
Relevant financial interests can include employment, consulting, ownership, paid advisory roles, sponsorship, patents and other relationships connected to the manuscript’s findings or potential applications. Consider the relationship’s recency, magnitude and connection to the work rather than assuming every financial link has identical implications.
Editors should also recognize institutional or journal-level commercial interests. Revenue targets, fee waivers and partnership expectations must not influence scholarly acceptance, and the person assessing a manuscript should not be pressured by those arrangements.
5. Evaluate academic and institutional relationships
Recent coauthorship, ongoing collaboration, shared grants, direct supervision and close institutional relationships can compromise the appearance or reality of independence. The exact significance depends on the relationship, timing, field and editorial role.
Membership in a large institution or research community does not necessarily establish a disqualifying conflict. Apply the journal’s documented thresholds and, when uncertainty remains, seek independent guidance rather than improvising inconsistent rules.
6. Consider personal relationships and intellectual commitments
Family ties, close friendships, serious personal disputes and professional rivalries may require recusal. Strong scholarly views or prior publications on a topic are not automatically conflicts, but they may matter if the editor cannot fairly evaluate competing evidence.
Editors should not demand ideological neutrality from reviewers or authors; they should require evidence-based assessment and transparent management of relationships that could undermine trust in the process.
7. Manage reviewer conflicts and author recommendations
Reviewer invitations should require a relevant conflict declaration and a clear opportunity to decline. Independently verify author-recommended reviewers and avoid allowing authors to select a panel that lacks appropriate independence.
If a conflict is disclosed after a report is received, assess whether the report can be relied upon, whether a replacement assessment is needed and whether any confidentiality issue arose. Record the decision without automatically assuming that the review was biased.
8. Manage conflicts involving editors-in-chief and board members
An editor-in-chief who is an author, collaborator or otherwise materially connected to a submission should not control its assignment, reviewer selection or outcome. A clearly designated independent editor should manage the case under an established procedure.
Board membership and seniority should not exempt a person from disclosure or recusal. Where a normal supervisor is conflicted, escalation must be available through an alternative authorized route.
9. Apply recusal in special issues and invited content
Guest editors often work within concentrated research networks and may have direct relationships with invited contributors. Establish independent oversight before submissions arrive, including rules for guest-editor-authored papers and manuscripts from close collaborators.
A conflicted guest editor should not select reviewers, view confidential reports unnecessarily or influence decisions on affected manuscripts. The journal should document the independent handling route and apply normal peer-review requirements.
10. Handle late disclosures and newly discovered conflicts
A conflict discovered during revision or after a decision requires prompt assessment of its relevance and the actions already taken. Preserve the record and consider whether prior reviewer selection or editorial judgment needs independent reassessment.
Late disclosure does not by itself prove misconduct or invalidate every previous action. Evaluate what the person actually did, the nature of the interest and the risk to procedural fairness before deciding whether to repeat a step or escalate.
11. Protect confidentiality during reassignment
When a person recuses themselves, transfer the manuscript through approved editorial systems and restrict further involvement as appropriate. Share only the information the replacement editor needs, and avoid informal discussions that could continue to influence the outcome.
The communication to authors should be accurate but should not unnecessarily disclose private relationships or confidential internal deliberations. Record the recusal and replacement for authorized audit.
12. Resolve contested conflict assessments
People may reasonably disagree about whether a relationship creates a material conflict. Use documented criteria and an independent decision-maker when the affected editor cannot impartially decide their own case.
A disputed disclosure should be assessed on verifiable facts, not assumptions about motives. If a complainant provides specific evidence, preserve it and consider whether a procedural appeal or integrity referral is also required.
13. Document decisions and maintain oversight
Keep manuscript-specific declarations, assessments, management plans, recusals, replacements and relevant communications in the approved case record. Documentation should show who made the determination and why the selected measure was proportionate.
Periodic audits can identify repeated late declarations, unclear assignment rules or special-issue vulnerabilities. Use those findings to improve policy and training rather than treating documentation as a box-ticking exercise.
14. A practical recusal decision framework
Identify the relationship, its connection to the manuscript, the person’s decision authority and how a reasonable observer might assess the risk. Determine whether disclosure alone is permitted, restrictions can manage the interest or full recusal is necessary.
Apply the decision before further substantive involvement wherever possible. Assign an independent replacement when required, preserve confidentiality and record the outcome. Reassess if new information emerges or the person’s role changes.