Ethical and Disclosure of Interest Code for Reviewers
Ethical Code and Conflict of Interest Agreement for Reviewers and Open-Peer Reviewers
Registering to the Review of Communication Research (RCR) website will allow you access to manuscripts in the open-access process. These documents are part of a reviewing process and because they have not been published yet, their authorship must be protected. Maintaining confidentiality and respect of authorship are essential values that allow free exchange of scientific opinions and evaluations. Reviewers and others with access to the documents MUST fully protect the information. In order to do so, the open-peer-review process is limited to registered users with an email address from a University or a Research Institute.
In registering into the RCR web site the applicant (hereafter the “applicant” or “you”) must agree with the following Ethical Code and Conflict of Interest Rules by marking the “agree” box.
1) You are a reviewer or potential reviewer of material submitted for presentation, publication, or research proposal to RCR.
2) You will not present segments or ideas from the manuscript as your own.
3) You commit with maintaining the confidentiality of the material you might read in during the open-access process until it is published (alternatively, you may ask for permission).
4) You will not distribute the manuscript in any way.
5) You must avoid making statements in your report which might be construed as impugning any person's reputation. Please, be even more respectful than you would like others to be with you.
6) You, as reviewer, should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report.
8) You acknowledge that the journal will record the registered members who download any manuscript in the open-peer-review process.
The open-peer-review process is at least single blind until the conclusion, and the classic peer review is double blind. It is possible that a reviewer identifies who the author is, or that the author has asked a colleague to make comments about his or her work. We allow these circunstances. However, we acknowledge that there might be competing interests that could limit objectivity in the judgments. Therefore, you must acknowledge the situation and write your review, or refrain from commenting the manuscript.
RCR requires that registered users declare any possible conflict of interests in their comments. Therefore, the applicant must agree with the following Conflict of Interest Agreement:
Conflict of Interest Rules
1. In the case that you have published any article opposing what the author argues you must acknowledge it in your comment.
2. In the case of competing interests due to working in the same department as the author you must acknowledge it in your comment.
3. In the case of collaboration on any project or co-authoring any article with the author you must acknowledge it in your comment.
4. In the case that you are a relative or long-term friend of the author you must acknowledge it in your comment.
5. In the case that the author has previously requested your comments on the manuscript/document you must acknowledge it in your comment. If the author has specifically asked for positive comments you must refrain from commenting.
6. In the case that you have any financial or monetary relationship with the author you must acknowledge it in your comment.
By marking the “agree” box in the registration form you state that you have read this Ethical Code and Conflict of Interest Rules and you hereby accept it under penalty of unprofessional and unethical behavior.
Thank you for protecting the rights of other scholars as you would like others to protect your own rights.
Approved. 2014, April.
Double-Blind Peer-Review Process
The purpose of the review process is to give an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript being considered. The review process in RCR should provide the authors, associate editors and editor with information on how to improve the article and make it publishable in a first line journal.
Reviewers' task is to HELP the author and the journal staff to improve the manuscript.
Double-Blind-Peer-Review Process + Editor Review
Each article is reviewed by two respected specialist on the topic that are part of the editorial board or that are contacted ad hoc, and by the editor or by an associate editor. Draft are also made available to the scholar commmunity in the open access reviewing process.
Reviewers in the editorial board must have an excellent publication record.
The address of the Editorial Management System is: www.review-of-communication-research.org