Reviewer Policies

• Reviewer Guidelines
• Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Reviewers)

1. Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the quality and integrity of The Ecoscan Journal. When agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers are expected to:

• Maintain confidentiality — manuscripts under review must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal benefit;
• Be objective — evaluate the work on scientific merit alone, providing constructive, evidence-based comments;
• Respond within the review window — reviews should be completed promptly to support the journal's 8–12 week decision timeline; reviewers unable to meet this should notify the editor as early as possible;
• Flag ethical concerns — including suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, directly to the handling editor;
• Decline where appropriate — if a reviewer lacks the expertise to evaluate a manuscript fairly, or has a conflict of interest, they should decline the invitation rather than submit a superficial review.

Since review is double-blind, reviewers should also avoid including any information in their comments that might reveal their identity to the author(s).

2. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Reviewers)

Reviewers must decline to review any manuscript where they have a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest — including manuscripts from close collaborators, current or recent co-authors, family members, or competitors in an active funding or commercial relationship. Reviewers should disclose any such conflict to the handling editor at the time of invitation, even if they still believe they can provide an objective review, so the editor can make the final call on suitability.