Conflicts of Interest

1. Introduction

Magistra Andalusia: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra (MAJIS) is committed to maintaining the integrity, independence, transparency, and credibility of scholarly publishing.

Conflicts of interest, also referred to as competing interests, can arise when an individual or organization has interests that could influence, or could reasonably be perceived as influencing, the objectivity, judgment, interpretation, review, editorial decision-making, or publication of scholarly work.

A conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that an individual has acted improperly. The existence of a conflict is distinct from the existence of misconduct. However, undisclosed or inadequately managed conflicts may undermine confidence in the scholarly record and in the fairness of the editorial process.

MAJIS therefore requires authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff, and other relevant parties to disclose potential conflicts of interest and to manage them appropriately.

The journal recognises that conflicts may be financial or non-financial, and may arise from personal, professional, academic, ideological, institutional, or other relationships or interests.

This policy has been developed with reference to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practice on Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests, relevant COPE guidance and discussion documents, and established principles of transparency in scholarly publishing. COPE requires journals to maintain clear definitions and processes for handling conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers, editors, journals, and publishers, whether identified before or after publication.

This policy does not imply COPE approval, certification, or endorsement of MAJIS.

2. Description

2.1 Definition of Conflict of Interest

For the purposes of this policy, a conflict of interest (COI) or competing interest is any financial, personal, professional, academic, ideological, institutional, or other interest that could influence, or could reasonably be perceived as influencing, an individual's judgment, conduct, or decision-making in connection with a manuscript, research project, peer-review process, editorial decision, or publication.

A conflict may be:

  • actual, where the interest directly conflicts with the individual's responsibilities;

  • potential, where circumstances could develop into a conflict; or

  • perceived, where a reasonable observer could consider the individual's impartiality to be compromised even if the individual believes that they can act objectively.

MAJIS encourages disclosure whenever there is reasonable uncertainty about whether an interest should be declared.

2.2 Financial Conflicts of Interest

Financial conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

  • research funding;

  • grants;

  • consultancy fees;

  • employment;

  • honoraria;

  • speaker fees;

  • royalties;

  • licensing arrangements;

  • patents or patent applications;

  • ownership of shares or other financial interests;

  • commercial relationships;

  • paid advisory roles;

  • financial support from an interested organisation;

  • institutional financial interests; or

  • other financial relationships that could reasonably be affected by publication.

The presence of research funding does not automatically imply improper influence. However, relevant funding and the role of the funder must be transparently disclosed.

2.3 Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest

Non-financial conflicts may arise from:

  • personal relationships;

  • close professional relationships;

  • academic collaborations;

  • supervisory relationships;

  • institutional affiliations;

  • academic competition;

  • intellectual commitments;

  • strongly held ideological positions;

  • professional or organisational roles;

  • disputes with authors or researchers;

  • personal relationships with research participants;

  • membership of organisations relevant to the manuscript; or

  • other circumstances that could reasonably affect impartial judgment.

Because MAJIS is a humanities journal, academic and intellectual relationships may be particularly relevant to editorial and peer-review independence.

2.4 Institutional Conflicts

An institutional conflict may arise when an individual's institution has an interest in the outcome of a manuscript or publication decision.

Examples may include:

  • the editor and author being affiliated with the same institution;

  • a reviewer being employed by an institution competing directly with the author's institution;

  • a manuscript concerns a program, policy, or project in which the reviewer's institution has a direct interest;

  • an institutional sponsor has a material interest in the findings; or

  • an editorial decision could directly affect the reputation or interests of an institution with which the decision-maker is affiliated.

Institutional affiliation alone does not necessarily constitute a conflict. The relevance and circumstances of the relationship should be considered.

2.5 Academic Conflicts

Academic conflicts may arise when individuals:

  • are direct competitors in the same research area;

  • have recently collaborated with an author;

  • are involved in an unresolved academic dispute;

  • are reviewing work that directly competes with their own unpublished research;

  • have a substantial intellectual or professional stake in a particular interpretation; or

  • may benefit academically from the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

Academic disagreement by itself does not necessarily constitute a conflict. However, a relationship that could reasonably compromise impartiality should be disclosed.

2.6 Personal Conflicts

Personal conflicts may include:

  • close friendship;

  • family relationships;

  • intimate relationships;

  • personal disputes;

  • significant personal dependence;

  • other close relationships that could affect impartial judgment.

Editors and reviewers should recuse themselves when such relationships create a material risk to impartiality.

2.7 Conflicts Involving Ideological or Intellectual Commitments

MAJIS recognises that humanities scholarship frequently involves theoretical, cultural, historical, philosophical, political, or ideological perspectives.

Holding a scholarly position or theoretical preference does not automatically constitute a conflict.

However, an individual should disclose and, where appropriate, recuse themselves when their involvement creates a significant risk that the manuscript will not receive an impartial assessment.

The purpose of this policy is not to restrict legitimate scholarly disagreement but to ensure that such disagreement does not compromise editorial fairness.

3. Policy

3.1 General Disclosure Requirement

MAJIS requires all authors to provide a Conflict of Interest Statement for every submission, whether or not a conflict exists.

Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, interpretation, writing, review, or publication of the manuscript.

A declaration of "no conflict of interest" is itself a valid disclosure when no relevant conflict exists.

3.2 Funding Disclosure

All relevant sources of financial support for the research, authorship, or publication must be disclosed.

Where applicable, authors should identify:

  • name of the funding organisation;

  • grant or award number;

  • recipient of the funding;

  • nature of the support; and

  • role of the funder in the research, analysis, writing, or decision to submit or publish.

Funding disclosure does not by itself imply a conflict or misconduct.

MAJIS requires transparency so that readers can assess the potential influence of financial support.

3.3 Funder's Role

Authors should disclose whether a funder had any role in:

  • study design;

  • collection or acquisition of research materials;

  • analysis or interpretation;

  • drafting the manuscript;

  • revision of the manuscript;

  • decision to submit;

  • decision to publish; or

  • other aspects of the research or publication process.

If the funder had no role, authors should state this explicitly.

3.4 Author Responsibility

Each author is responsible for:

  • identifying relevant conflicts;

  • providing accurate disclosure information;

  • informing co-authors of relevant interests;

  • updating disclosures when circumstances change;

  • responding to editorial requests for clarification; and

  • ensuring that the final declaration accurately reflects the interests of the author group.

The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating the submission of COI declarations but does not assume responsibility for undisclosed interests that an individual author deliberately fails to disclose.

3.5 Conflict of Interest Statement in the Article

A Conflict of Interest Statement should appear in the published article.

Where no relevant conflict exists, the article may use wording such as:

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the research, authorship, or publication of this article.

Where a conflict exists, the declaration should identify the relevant interest clearly and sufficiently for readers to understand its potential relevance.

For example:

Conflict of Interest: Author A received research funding from [Organisation]. The funder had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, writing, or decision to submit the manuscript.

Authors should adapt the wording to accurately describe their circumstances.

3.6 Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must assess potential conflicts before accepting an invitation to review.

A reviewer should decline an invitation where a conflict could reasonably compromise, or appear to compromise, impartiality.

Potential reviewer conflicts include:

  • recent collaboration with an author;

  • current institutional affiliation with an author;

  • close personal relationship with an author;

  • supervisory or student relationship;

  • direct academic competition;

  • unresolved dispute with an author;

  • financial relationship with an author or interested organisation;

  • direct involvement in competing unpublished research;

  • substantial personal or professional interest in the outcome; or

  • other circumstances that could reasonably affect impartiality.

MAJIS's peer-review policy requires reviewers to declare conflicts before accepting an invitation and to decline when a significant conflict exists.

3.7 Reviewer Recusal

When a reviewer identifies a significant conflict, the reviewer should:

  1. decline the review invitation;

  2. inform the handling editor, without disclosing unnecessary confidential information;

  3. refrain from accessing or using confidential manuscript information beyond what is necessary to respond to the invitation; and

  4. not attempt to influence the editorial decision through informal channels.

The editor may record the reason for recusal for internal editorial purposes.

3.8 Editor Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and must not make editorial decisions where their impartiality may reasonably be compromised.

An editor should recuse themselves when they:

  • are an author of the manuscript;

  • have recently collaborated with an author;

  • are affiliated with the same institution as an author where this creates a material conflict;

  • have a close personal relationship with an author;

  • have a significant academic dispute with an author;

  • have a direct financial interest in the outcome;

  • have a competing manuscript or research project that could be materially affected;

  • have another relevant relationship that could compromise editorial independence.

3.9 Editorial Recusal and Delegation

When an editor has a significant conflict, the manuscript should be transferred to an appropriately independent editor.

The conflicted editor must not:

  • select reviewers;

  • influence the peer-review process;

  • make the editorial decision;

  • communicate a preferred outcome to the independent decision-maker; or

  • otherwise interfere with the editorial process.

The independent editor will manage the manuscript according to normal editorial procedures.

MAJIS's current publication-ethics policy expressly requires editors to disclose conflicts, recuse themselves when conflicted, and delegate decisions.

3.10 Editor as Author

If an editor submits a manuscript to MAJIS, the manuscript must be handled independently from that editor.

The submitting editor must not participate in the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.

Where possible, an independent editor should be assigned to manage the manuscript from peer-review selection through final decision.

The same principle applies to manuscripts submitted by editorial-board members.

3.11 Editorial Board Members

Editorial-board membership does not itself constitute a conflict of interest.

However, editorial-board members must disclose relevant conflicts when:

  • submitting manuscripts;

  • reviewing manuscripts;

  • making editorial recommendations; or

  • participating in policy or publication decisions.

Board members must recuse themselves where their interests could compromise impartiality.

3.12 Journal and Publisher Conflicts

MAJIS recognises that conflicts may also exist at the level of the journal, its owner, publisher, sponsoring institution, or other organisational stakeholders.

Editorial decisions must remain independent from commercial, financial, institutional, or other interests.

No sponsor, funder, owner, publisher, or other external party should determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected on the basis of interests unrelated to its scholarly and ethical merits.

Where an institutional or organisational conflict arises, MAJIS should assign the matter to an independent editorial decision-maker where necessary.

3.13 Staff Conflicts of Interest

Editorial and administrative staff should disclose conflicts that could affect the handling of manuscripts or publication-ethics cases.

Staff members with a material conflict should not participate in the relevant decision or investigation.

3.14 Conflict of Interest Does Not Automatically Mean Misconduct

The existence of a conflict is not itself evidence of misconduct.

MAJIS distinguishes between:

  1. having a conflict;

  2. failing to disclose a conflict; and

  3. deliberately concealing a conflict in a manner that affects the integrity of the editorial or scholarly process.

The appropriate response depends on the circumstances, materiality, timing, and consequences of the conflict.

3.15 Undisclosed Conflicts

Where a previously undisclosed conflict is identified, MAJIS will assess:

  • the nature of the conflict;

  • its significance;

  • whether the conflict could reasonably have affected the research or editorial process;

  • whether the conflict was known to the relevant individual;

  • whether the omission appears intentional;

  • whether the manuscript is under review or already published; and

  • whether the scholarly record requires correction.

The journal may request a written explanation from the relevant individual.

3.16 Undisclosed Author Conflicts Before Publication

If an undisclosed author conflict is identified before publication, MAJIS may:

  • request a revised declaration;

  • require additional disclosure in the manuscript;

  • request clarification regarding the funder's role;

  • reassess the manuscript where the conflict may have affected the editorial process;

  • require additional peer review where appropriate; or

  • refer the matter to the relevant publication-ethics procedure.

3.17 Undisclosed Conflicts After Publication

If a material conflict is discovered after publication, MAJIS will assess whether the published article should be corrected.

Possible actions include:

  • publication of a correction;

  • addition or amendment of a Conflict of Interest Statement;

  • publication of an editorial note;

  • further editorial or research-integrity investigation;

  • Expression of Concern where the reliability of the article is uncertain; or

  • retraction in exceptional circumstances where the conflict is associated with serious unreliability or other grounds for retraction.

COPE's guidance specifically recognises that competing interests may emerge after publication and that correcting the published record can be an appropriate and positive editorial action.

3.18 Conflicts Affecting Peer Review

If a significant conflict is identified after peer review has begun, MAJIS may:

  • replace the reviewer;

  • disregard the conflicted review where appropriate;

  • appoint an additional independent reviewer;

  • reassess the editorial decision; or

  • take another action necessary to protect the fairness of the review process.

Where a conflict is identified after an editorial decision, the journal may review whether the conflict could reasonably have affected the decision.

3.19 Conflicts Affecting an Editorial Decision

If an editor's conflict is discovered after a decision has been made, MAJIS will assess whether the decision should be independently reviewed.

Possible actions include:

  • confirmation of the decision after independent review;

  • reassignment of the manuscript;

  • additional peer review;

  • reconsideration of the decision; or

  • another appropriate editorial action.

3.20 Reviewer Use of Confidential Information

A reviewer must not use confidential information obtained through peer review for:

  • personal advantage;

  • academic competition;

  • financial gain;

  • commercial purposes;

  • advancing their own research before publication; or

  • benefiting another person or organisation.

This obligation applies whether or not the reviewer has formally declared a conflict.

3.21 Suggested Reviewers

Where authors are permitted to suggest potential reviewers, such suggestions do not create an obligation for MAJIS to select those reviewers.

Editors must independently assess suggested reviewers for:

  • relevant expertise;

  • independence;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • suitability;

  • availability; and

  • other relevant editorial considerations.

Authors must not suggest reviewers with whom they have a relationship that could compromise the integrity of peer review.

MAJIS retains sole responsibility for final reviewer selection. Its peer-review policy specifically provides for vetting author-suggested reviewers and checking for conflicts.

3.22 Reciprocal Review and Collaboration

Authors and reviewers should not arrange reciprocal reviewing relationships designed to influence publication outcomes.

Recent collaboration alone does not automatically establish misconduct, but it may create a conflict requiring recusal depending on the circumstances.

3.23 Conference, Thesis, and Prior Academic Relationships

Prior academic interaction does not automatically constitute a conflict.

However, a reviewer or editor should disclose a relationship when it could reasonably affect impartiality.

Examples include:

  • recent supervisor–student relationships;

  • current close collaboration;

  • direct competition for the same research opportunity;

  • unresolved disputes;

  • joint grant applications;

  • close personal relationships; or

  • other relationships of material significance.

3.24 Ideological and Scholarly Diversity

MAJIS recognises the legitimacy of diverse theoretical, methodological, cultural, philosophical, and ideological approaches in literary and cultural scholarship.

A reviewer or editor should not be excluded merely because they hold a different scholarly interpretation.

At the same time, where an individual's commitment is so directly connected to the manuscript that impartial assessment is reasonably in doubt, the individual should disclose the conflict and, where appropriate, recuse themselves.

3.25 Disclosure Does Not Automatically Require Recusal

Disclosure and recusal are related but distinct mechanisms.

Not every disclosed interest requires removal from the process.

The responsible editor should assess:

  • materiality;

  • proximity of the relationship;

  • recency;

  • directness of the interest;

  • potential impact on impartiality; and

  • reasonable perception of bias.

Where a significant risk remains, recusal is the preferred safeguard.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

4.1 Collection of Author Disclosures

A Conflict of Interest Statement must be collected at manuscript submission.

The submission workflow should require authors to select one of the following:

Option A — No conflict

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the research, authorship, or publication of this article.

Option B — Conflict disclosed

The authors declare the following conflict(s) of interest: [provide a clear description].

Option C — Funding-related disclosure

This research was supported by [funder], grant number [number]. The funder had [no role / the following role] in the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, writing, or decision to submit the manuscript.

Authors should select the statement that accurately reflects their circumstances.

4.2 Funding Statement

Funding information should be collected separately where possible.

The Funding Statement should identify:

  • funding body;

  • grant number;

  • recipient;

  • nature of support; and

  • role of the funder.

The Conflict of Interest Statement should not be used as a substitute for a complete funding disclosure.

4.3 Editorial Screening

At submission, the editorial office should check whether:

  • a COI statement has been provided;

  • funding information has been declared;

  • the declaration is internally consistent;

  • the corresponding author has coordinated disclosure among co-authors; and

  • any apparent conflict requires editorial review.

The editorial office should not attempt to determine the absence of a conflict solely from an author's institutional affiliation.

4.4 Reviewer Declaration

The reviewer invitation should include a request to confirm that the reviewer:

  • has no relevant conflict of interest; or

  • has identified a conflict and will decline the invitation.

A reviewer should be able to decline an invitation without providing unnecessary details.

Where clarification is necessary, the reviewer may confidentially explain the relevant circumstances to the editor.

4.5 Editorial Declaration

Editors should disclose relevant conflicts before handling manuscripts or publication-ethics cases.

The journal should maintain an internal record of editorial recusal and reassignment where appropriate.

4.6 Public Disclosure of Editorial Conflicts

MAJIS's current publication-ethics policy provides that editors' conflicts of interest should be published on the journal website.

Accordingly, MAJIS should maintain a publicly accessible editorial conflict-of-interest disclosure mechanism.

Editorial COI disclosure page:
[INSERT VERIFIED MAJIS EDITORIAL COI PAGE OR IMPLEMENTATION]

At minimum, relevant recurring or standing interests should be disclosed where appropriate.

4.7 Recusal Procedure

When an editor or reviewer identifies a significant conflict:

  1. the conflict is disclosed;

  2. the individual is removed from the relevant decision or review;

  3. an independent replacement is appointed;

  4. the editorial record documents the reassignment; and

  5. the process continues under normal editorial procedures.

4.8 Documentation

MAJIS should retain appropriate records of:

  • author COI declarations;

  • funding disclosures;

  • reviewer COI declarations;

  • editorial recusal;

  • reassignment decisions;

  • post-publication COI discoveries;

  • correspondence concerning COI; and

  • actions taken in response.

Records should be handled confidentially and accessed only by authorised personnel.

4.9 Post-Publication Investigation Procedure

When a potential undisclosed conflict is identified after publication, MAJIS should:

Step 1 — Record the Concern

Document the source and nature of the allegation.

Step 2 — Preliminary Assessment

Determine whether the alleged interest could reasonably constitute a relevant conflict.

Step 3 — Contact the Relevant Author or Party

Request clarification and disclosure.

Step 4 — Assess Materiality

Determine whether the conflict could have affected:

  • research conduct;

  • interpretation;

  • reporting;

  • peer review;

  • editorial decision-making; or

  • readers' understanding of the article.

Step 5 — Determine Editorial Action

Possible actions include:

  • no action;

  • correction of the COI statement;

  • editorial note;

  • further investigation;

  • Expression of Concern; or

  • retraction in exceptional cases.

Step 6 — Correct the Scholarly Record

Where a correction is required, the correction should be clearly linked to the original article and should preserve the transparency of the publication history.

5. Responsibilities

5.1 Authors

Authors must:

  • disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests;

  • disclose funding;

  • identify the role of funders;

  • update declarations when circumstances change;

  • ensure that declarations are accurate;

  • cooperate with editorial requests for clarification; and

  • inform the journal promptly if a relevant undisclosed conflict is discovered after publication.

5.2 Corresponding Author

The corresponding author must:

  • coordinate COI declarations among authors;

  • ensure that all authors are aware of the declaration;

  • submit accurate information to MAJIS;

  • coordinate corrections where necessary; and

  • communicate material changes in circumstances to the journal.

5.3 Reviewers

Reviewers must:

  • evaluate potential conflicts before accepting an invitation;

  • decline conflicted assignments;

  • maintain confidentiality;

  • avoid using manuscript information for personal advantage;

  • inform the editor of relevant concerns; and

  • disclose conflicts that arise after accepting an assignment.

5.4 Editors

Editors must:

  • disclose relevant conflicts;

  • recuse themselves where appropriate;

  • delegate conflicted decisions;

  • maintain editorial independence;

  • protect confidential information;

  • ensure fair reviewer selection; and

  • respond appropriately to undisclosed conflicts.

5.5 Editorial Office

The editorial office should:

  • collect required disclosure information;

  • maintain appropriate records;

  • identify obvious inconsistencies;

  • support recusal procedures;

  • preserve confidentiality; and

  • escalate significant concerns to the appropriate editor.

5.6 Journal and Publisher

The journal and publisher should:

  • maintain a transparent COI policy;

  • support editorial independence;

  • provide appropriate systems for disclosure;

  • ensure that commercial or institutional interests do not improperly influence editorial decisions; and

  • cooperate in resolving significant post-publication COI concerns.

6. Conflict of Interest Decision Framework

When assessing whether an interest requires disclosure or recusal, MAJIS should consider the following questions:

  1. What is the nature of the interest?

  2. Who holds the interest?

  3. How closely is the interest connected to the manuscript or decision?

  4. How recent is the relationship or interest?

  5. Could the interest reasonably influence the individual's judgment?

  6. Could a reasonable reader, author, or reviewer perceive the individual as insufficiently independent?

  7. Would disclosure alone adequately manage the conflict?

  8. Is recusal necessary to protect the integrity of the process?

  9. Has the conflict already affected peer review or editorial decision-making?

  10. Does the published record require correction?

The purpose of this framework is to support consistent decision-making rather than to create an exhaustive list of every possible conflict.

7. Relationship with Other MAJIS Policies

This policy should be read together with the journal's other publication-ethics policies.

Relevant interactions include:

  • Authorship and Contributorship — for author relationships and contribution disputes;

  • Complaints and Appeals — where a complaint alleges that a COI affected an editorial decision;

  • Peer Review Process — for reviewer conflicts and recusal;

  • Allegations of Misconduct — where deliberate concealment of a material conflict may constitute a broader integrity concern;

  • Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections — for correcting an undisclosed conflict in a published article;

  • Retraction and Expression of Concern — where a conflict contributes to serious concerns regarding reliability or integrity;

  • Generative AI Policy — where use of AI tools creates confidentiality, financial, institutional, or other competing interests.

8. COPE Resources

This policy has been developed with reference to the COPE Core Practice on Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests.

COPE states that journals should have clear definitions and processes for handling conflicts of interest involving:

  • authors;

  • reviewers;

  • editors;

  • editorial staff;

  • editorial boards;

  • journals; and

  • publishers.

These processes should apply whether conflicts are identified before or after publication.

COPE also identifies the need for clear and consistent policies concerning:

  • what must be disclosed;

  • the type and extent of the competing interest;

  • relevant time periods;

  • when disclosures are collected;

  • how disclosures are handled; and

  • how conflicts involving authors, reviewers, editors, staff, and journal owners are managed.

Relevant COPE materials include:

  • COPE Core Practice: Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

  • COPE Discussion Document: Handling Competing Interests

  • COPE Guideline: Editorial Board Participation

  • COPE Flowcharts concerning conflicts of interest

  • COPE cases concerning competing interests

The COPE discussion document on handling competing interests should be understood as a discussion/guidance document rather than a mandatory COPE rule. It provides useful considerations for defining, disclosing, and managing competing interests, including circumstances in which a conflict becomes known after publication.

Official COPE resources are available through:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

9. Final Statement

MAJIS considers transparent disclosure and appropriate management of conflicts of interest to be essential to maintaining trust in the scholarly record.

The existence of a conflict does not necessarily indicate misconduct. Rather, disclosure enables editors, reviewers, authors, and readers to understand circumstances that may reasonably affect—or appear to affect—the independence of scholarly judgment.

MAJIS therefore requires relevant conflicts to be disclosed by authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the publication process. Where disclosure is insufficient to protect impartiality, appropriate recusal and delegation procedures will be applied.

Material undisclosed conflicts identified before or after publication will be assessed according to their nature and potential impact. Where necessary, MAJIS will correct the published record through an appropriate editorial mechanism.

This policy has been developed with reference to relevant COPE Core Practices, COPE guidance, and principles of transparency in scholarly publishing. It does not constitute or imply COPE approval, certification, or endorsement.