• Contribute to Editorial Decisions: The peer-review process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author in improving the paper [citation:8].
• Maintain Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts as confidential documents; do not share or discuss with unauthorized persons [citation:3][citation:8].
• Decline When Appropriate: Withdraw from the review process if unqualified or unable to provide a prompt review [citation:8].
• Conduct Objective Reviews: Express views clearly with supporting arguments; personal criticism of the author is inappropriate [citation:3][citation:8].
• Disclose Conflicts: Declare any competing interests and decline review if a conflict exists [citation:3][citation:8].

IMJH adheres to the ethical standards set by COPE, including:

• Transparency: Clear description of submission, review and publication processes [citation:9]
• Impartiality: Independence of editors and reviewers from commercial or institutional pressure [citation:9]
• Academic Integrity: Avoidance of plagiarism, falsification, and duplicate publication [citation:9]
• Correct Authorship: Clear definition of each author's contribution [citation:9]
• Handling Complaints: Open and clear procedures for appeals and ethics concerns [citation:9]

• Read and assess alone: Review the manuscript independently unless editor has authorized co-reviewers [citation:1][citation:8].
• Delete after review: Destroy manuscript files after completing your review.
• Report breaches: Notify the editor immediately if confidentiality is accidentally compromised.
• Maintain post-review confidentiality: Do not discuss the review process even after publication [citation:8].
• Secure files: Store manuscript files on password-protected devices.

• Do not discuss: Never discuss the manuscript with colleagues, students, or any unauthorized persons [citation:3][citation:8].
• Do not share files: Never share the manuscript via email, social media, or file-sharing platforms.
• Do not use content: Never use ideas or data from the manuscript for your own research before publication [citation:3][citation:8].
• Do not post online: Never post about the manuscript on social media, preprint servers, or academic networks.
• Do not retain copies: Never keep copies of the manuscript after review completion.

• Employment: Current or recent employment at the same institution as authors
• Funding: Research funding from the same sponsor as the submitted work
• Consulting: Paid consultancy for entities related to the research
• Stock/Equity: Ownership interests in companies related to the work
• Patents: Intellectual property rights related to the manuscript
• Speaking fees: Honoraria from organizations with interest in the research

"All authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare [conflicts of interest]." [citation:9]

• Collaboration: Current or recent (within 3 years) research collaboration with any author
• Mentorship: Current or recent mentor-trainee relationship
• Competition: Direct competitor in the same research area
• Personal relationship: Family member, close friend, or romantic partner
• Rivalry: Long-standing academic or personal rivalry
• Institutional: Same department or division [citation:8]

• Respond to invitations: Within 48 hours - accept or decline promptly [citation:6].
• Submit reviews: Within 7 days of acceptance (standard timeframe).
• Request extensions: Before the deadline, not after.
• Decline if unavailable: Better to decline than to accept and delay.
• Withdraw if delayed: If unforeseen circumstances prevent timely submission, notify the editor immediately.

• Deliberate delaying: Accepting reviews with no intention of completing them on time to disadvantage competitors.
• Holding manuscripts: Retaining manuscripts without review to delay competing research.
• Repeated extensions: Habitually requesting extensions without valid justification.
• No-show reviews: Accepting invitations and never submitting a review.

These practices constitute reviewer misconduct and may result in removal from the reviewer database.

Reviewer Obligations for Citation

• Identify missing citations: Alert the editor to relevant published work that has not been cited [citation:8].
• Report substantial overlap: Call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other published paper [citation:8].
• Provide specific references: When suggesting additional citations, include complete reference details.
• Distinguish essential vs. optional: Clearly indicate which citations are essential for scientific accuracy versus suggested for broader context.

Prohibited Citation Practices

• No coercive citation: Do not suggest citations to the reviewer's own work unless genuinely relevant and essential [citation:8].
• No citation inflation: Do not request citations to artificially inflate citation metrics.
• No irrelevant citations: Do not suggest citations that are peripheral or unrelated to the manuscript.

Coercive citation is a form of reviewer misconduct and may result in removal from the reviewer database.

Reportable Concerns

• Plagiarism: Substantial unattributed copying of text, data, or ideas [citation:6][citation:8].
• Duplicate publication: Substantially similar content published elsewhere [citation:8].
• Data fabrication/falsification: Suspected manipulation or invention of data [citation:8].
• Image manipulation: Inappropriate alteration of figures or images.
• Authorship issues: Suspected ghost or gift authorship.
• Undisclosed conflicts: Failure to declare relevant competing interests [citation:10].
• Peer review manipulation: Suspicious reviewer activity or citation rings [citation:1][citation:6].

How to Report

• Contact the editor: Send a confidential email to the editorial office.
• Provide specific details: Include manuscript ID, specific concerns, and supporting evidence.
• Use confidential comments: Utilize the "confidential comments to editor" section of your review.
• Maintain confidentiality: Do not discuss suspicions with authors or other parties.

• Editor permission required: Reviewers must obtain explicit permission from the editor before involving any co-reviewer [citation:1].
• Acknowledge contributions: The co-reviewer's name and role should be acknowledged to the editor.
• Training opportunity: Involving trainees (PhD students, postdocs, residents) is encouraged as a mentoring activity.
• Primary responsibility: The invited reviewer remains fully responsible for the quality and integrity of the review.

• Ghost reviewing: Delegating the review to an unacknowledged colleague or trainee without editor permission [citation:1].
• Unauthorized delegation: Allowing others to complete the review without the editor's knowledge.
• Misrepresentation: Submitting a review completed entirely by someone else without disclosure.

Ghost reviewing is a form of reviewer misconduct and violates confidentiality obligations.

IMJH Policy on Review Editing

• Editing permitted for: Tone, language, and compliance with journal policy and reviewer guidelines [citation:5].
• Not permitted: Changing the meaning or intention of the review, or altering the reviewer's professional opinion [citation:5].
• Collaborative approach: Whenever possible, editors will work with reviewers to revise problematic content.
• Notification: Reviewers will be informed of significant changes to their reviews.
• Serious/persistent violations: May result in removal from reviewer pool [citation:5].

Ownership of Peer Reviews

COPE has explored the question: "Who 'owns' peer reviews?" [citation:1]. At IMJH:

• Review content: The intellectual content of the review is the work of the reviewer.
• Journal's right: By submitting a review, reviewers grant IMJH a non-exclusive license to use the review for editorial purposes.
• Transferability: IMJH supports the transfer of reviews between journals (with reviewer permission).
• Anonymity: Reviewer identities are protected unless reviewer consents to disclosure.

• Educational response: For minor or first-time violations, reviewers may receive guidance and educational resources.
• Warning: Formal warning from the editor-in-chief, documented in reviewer file.
• Removal from reviewer database: For serious or persistent violations, removal from active reviewer status [citation:5].
• Prohibition from future submissions: Authorship or co-authorship submissions may be barred for a defined period.
• Institutional notification: For severe misconduct (data theft, fraud), notification to reviewer's institution or employer [citation:10].
• Legal action: For appropriation of intellectual property or other legally actionable conduct.

• Designated contact person: IMJH has a designated ethics contact for enquiries and appeals [citation:10].
• Written complaint: Submit detailed complaint to info@imjhealth.org.
• Investigation: All complaints are investigated thoroughly and impartially.
• Right to respond: Accused individuals have the opportunity to respond to allegations.
• Appeal: Decisions may be appealed within 30 days with new evidence or grounds [citation:10].