Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

1. Introduction

Magistra Andalusia: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra (MAJIS) is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, confidential, and ethically responsible peer review process. Peer review is an essential component of scholarly communication and plays a central role in maintaining the quality, credibility, originality, and integrity of the academic record.

MAJIS employs a double-anonymous peer review model for eligible scholarly submissions. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process. The journal normally seeks at least two independent external reviews for manuscripts that proceed to full peer review and may appoint additional reviewers when necessary.

Reviewers serve as independent scholarly advisers to the editorial team. Their role is to provide an informed, fair, evidence-based, constructive, and timely assessment of a manuscript. Reviewers do not make the final decision regarding publication. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

This policy sets out the ethical standards and responsibilities expected of all reviewers who evaluate manuscripts for MAJIS. It has been developed with reference to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and relevant COPE Core Practices.

2. Description

2.1 Peer Review

Peer review is the critical and independent assessment of a scholarly manuscript by individuals with relevant subject expertise who are not responsible for the manuscript's editorial decision.

The principal purposes of peer review at MAJIS are to:

  • assess the scholarly quality of submitted manuscripts;

  • evaluate originality and significance;

  • assess the coherence and validity of arguments and interpretations;

  • evaluate the appropriateness of research methods;

  • identify important omissions or weaknesses;

  • identify relevant ethical concerns;

  • assist editors in making informed publication decisions; and

  • provide authors with constructive feedback that may improve their work.

Peer review is not intended to guarantee that a manuscript is error-free. Rather, it is a scholarly quality-control mechanism that supports informed editorial judgment.

2.2 Double-Anonymous Peer Review

MAJIS uses a double-anonymous peer review model for eligible submissions.

Accordingly:

  • authors do not normally know the identities of reviewers;

  • reviewers do not normally know the identities of authors;

  • reviewers must not attempt to discover the identity of authors for the purpose of influencing their assessment;

  • reviewers must not disclose their identity through the review report; and

  • all parties must respect the confidentiality of the review process.

If a reviewer independently identifies an author and believes that this creates a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must inform the handling editor.

COPE emphasises that reviewers should understand the peer review model used by the journal and comply with the confidentiality and ethical obligations associated with that model.

2.3 Role of Reviewers

Reviewers provide expert advice to the editorial team.

A reviewer is expected to:

  • assess the manuscript objectively;

  • evaluate the manuscript within the scope of their expertise;

  • identify strengths and weaknesses;

  • provide evidence-based comments;

  • identify significant methodological, conceptual, or interpretive problems;

  • identify relevant ethical concerns;

  • identify substantial overlap or possible publication misconduct where apparent;

  • distinguish major concerns from minor recommendations;

  • provide constructive recommendations for improvement; and

  • submit the review within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers should not act as advocates for acceptance or rejection. Their role is to provide a scholarly assessment that assists the editor in making the editorial decision.

3. Policy

3.1 Professional Responsibility

Peer review is an important professional responsibility within the scholarly community.

MAJIS expects reviewers to accept invitations only when they:

  • possess sufficient expertise relevant to the manuscript;

  • can provide an objective assessment;

  • have sufficient time to complete the review;

  • can comply with the journal's confidentiality requirements; and

  • do not have a significant conflict of interest.

Reviewers should provide accurate and verifiable professional information when communicating with the journal.

A reviewer must not impersonate another scholar or allow another person to review a manuscript using their identity.

COPE identifies reviewer impersonation and compromised peer review as serious ethical concerns.

3.2 Appropriate Expertise

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have adequate expertise to evaluate the relevant aspects of the manuscript.

A reviewer should notify the editor if:

  • the manuscript falls outside their principal expertise;

  • only a portion of the manuscript falls within their expertise;

  • specialised methodological knowledge is required that they do not possess; or

  • their lack of expertise could result in an unreliable assessment.

A reviewer may indicate specific areas in which their expertise is limited.

A reviewer should not accept an assignment solely because the topic is generally interesting or because access to the manuscript may provide a professional advantage.

COPE recommends that reviewers disclose gaps in expertise rather than undertaking a review that could compromise the quality or timeliness of the assessment.

3.3 Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review, together with supplementary materials, editorial correspondence, reviewer forms, and other information obtained during peer review, must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must:

  • not disclose the manuscript or its contents to third parties;

  • not share manuscript files;

  • not discuss the manuscript publicly;

  • not contact the authors directly about the manuscript;

  • not disclose the existence of the review assignment where doing so could compromise confidentiality;

  • not reproduce substantial portions of the manuscript;

  • not use confidential information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage; and

  • protect any confidential information contained in the manuscript.

Reviewers must not retain manuscript files after the review has been completed unless the journal expressly permits such retention.

COPE specifically requires reviewers to respect the confidentiality of peer review and prohibits the use of information obtained during review for personal advantage or to disadvantage others.

3.4 No Unauthorised Delegation

A reviewer must not transfer or delegate a review assignment to another individual without prior permission from the journal.

This prohibition includes asking:

  • a colleague;

  • research assistant;

  • student;

  • postdoctoral researcher;

  • supervisee;

  • academic collaborator; or

  • another third party

to review the manuscript on the reviewer's behalf without notifying and obtaining permission from the journal.

If the journal permits another individual to assist with a review, the reviewer must ensure that:

  • the person understands the confidentiality requirements;

  • the person's contribution is appropriately acknowledged in the journal's records; and

  • no conflict of interest exists.

COPE explicitly states that reviewers should not involve another person in reviewing a manuscript without first obtaining permission from the journal.

3.5 Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation.

A conflict may arise from:

  • current employment at the same institution as an author;

  • recent collaboration;

  • recent co-authorship;

  • joint research projects;

  • shared grants;

  • supervisory relationships;

  • close personal relationships;

  • professional rivalry;

  • financial interests;

  • institutional interests;

  • competing research;

  • strong intellectual commitments that may prevent objective assessment;

  • having reviewed an earlier version of the manuscript elsewhere;

  • having a substantially similar manuscript under preparation or review elsewhere; or

  • any other circumstance that could reasonably affect impartiality.

MAJIS's existing Publication Ethics framework specifically requires reviewers to declare conflicts before accepting a manuscript and identifies recent collaboration, mentorship, close personal relationships, and institutional or competitive ties as relevant circumstances.

Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

If a conflict becomes apparent after the review has begun, the reviewer must notify the handling editor immediately and await further instructions.

3.6 Recognition of Author Identity

Because MAJIS uses double-anonymous review, reviewers should not deliberately seek to identify the authors.

If a reviewer identifies an author accidentally—for example, through a distinctive research topic, self-citation, preprint, conference presentation, or publicly available research—this does not automatically invalidate the review.

However, the reviewer must notify the editor if the identification creates or may create a conflict of interest or threatens the impartiality of the review.

COPE specifically advises reviewers in double-anonymous processes to notify the journal when knowledge of an author's identity creates a potential competing interest.

3.7 Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviews must be objective and based on the scholarly content of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not allow their assessment to be influenced by:

  • nationality;

  • ethnicity;

  • institutional affiliation;

  • academic status;

  • gender;

  • religion;

  • political beliefs;

  • personal characteristics;

  • geographical origin;

  • language background;

  • professional reputation;

  • commercial considerations; or

  • personal relationships.

Reviewers should assess the manuscript rather than the perceived prestige or identity of its authors.

COPE specifically instructs reviewers to avoid bias arising from characteristics such as nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, manuscript origin, and commercial considerations.

3.8 Constructive and Respectful Reviewing

Reviewer comments must be professional, respectful, and constructive.

Reviewers should:

  • identify problems clearly;

  • explain why a concern matters;

  • distinguish major from minor concerns;

  • provide appropriate references where useful;

  • suggest practical improvements;

  • acknowledge strengths where relevant; and

  • avoid unnecessarily hostile or dismissive language.

Reviewers must not:

  • insult authors;

  • question authors' intelligence or competence;

  • make discriminatory remarks;

  • use humiliating language;

  • make personal attacks;

  • ridicule the manuscript; or

  • use the review as an opportunity to promote personal disputes.

A rigorous review may be highly critical while remaining professional.

3.9 Assessment of Scholarly Quality

Reviewers should consider, as applicable:

Originality

  • Does the manuscript offer an original contribution?

  • Does it provide a meaningful interpretation, argument, finding, or synthesis?

  • Is the contribution sufficiently distinguished from existing literature?

Relevance and Significance

  • Is the topic relevant to the journal's scope?

  • Does the manuscript make a meaningful scholarly contribution?

  • Is the research question or argument sufficiently justified?

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

  • Is the theoretical framework appropriate?

  • Are key concepts clearly defined?

  • Is the relationship between theory and analysis coherent?

Methodology

Where applicable:

  • Is the methodology appropriate?

  • Is the research design sufficiently explained?

  • Are analytical procedures appropriate?

  • Are sources or data adequately described?

  • Are methodological limitations acknowledged?

Analysis and Interpretation

  • Are claims supported by evidence?

  • Is the analysis logically developed?

  • Are interpretations appropriately justified?

  • Are alternative explanations considered where relevant?

Literature and Citations

  • Does the manuscript engage sufficiently with relevant scholarship?

  • Are important sources missing?

  • Are citations accurate and relevant?

  • Does the manuscript misrepresent cited sources?

Presentation

  • Is the manuscript logically organised?

  • Is the language sufficiently clear?

  • Are tables, figures, quotations, and other materials appropriately presented?

  • Does the manuscript follow the journal's submission requirements?

3.10 Review of Humanities and Literary Scholarship

Because MAJIS publishes scholarship in literature and related humanities fields, reviewers should recognise that methodological standards may differ from those used in experimental or quantitative disciplines.

Depending on the manuscript, reviewers may assess:

  • textual evidence;

  • interpretive coherence;

  • theoretical grounding;

  • historical and cultural context;

  • linguistic evidence;

  • quality and appropriateness of primary sources;

  • engagement with relevant criticism;

  • originality of interpretation;

  • coherence of close reading;

  • validity of comparative analysis;

  • appropriate use of translations; and

  • accuracy in representing literary, linguistic, historical, and cultural sources.

Reviewers should not reject an interpretive argument merely because it does not follow methodological conventions from another discipline, provided that the approach is intellectually justified and appropriate to the manuscript.

3.11 Identification of Ethical Concerns

Reviewers have an important role in identifying possible ethical concerns.

Reviewers should alert the editor if they identify potential:

  • plagiarism;

  • substantial text recycling;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • fabricated or falsified information;

  • manipulated images;

  • suspicious data;

  • inappropriate authorship;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • unethical research involving human participants;

  • inappropriate use of personal information;

  • citation manipulation;

  • peer-review manipulation;

  • copyright concerns; or

  • other forms of publication misconduct.

Reviewers should provide the editor with sufficient information to understand the concern.

Reviewers should not conduct an independent investigation or contact third parties about suspected misconduct unless specifically instructed by the journal.

COPE recommends that reviewers report suspected ethical irregularities directly and confidentially to the editor rather than attempting to investigate the matter independently.

3.12 Plagiarism and Text Overlap

If a reviewer recognises substantial similarity between the manuscript and:

  • a published article;

  • a conference paper;

  • a thesis;

  • a preprint;

  • another manuscript; or

  • other scholarly material,

the reviewer should inform the editor.

The reviewer should provide the relevant source where possible.

The reviewer should not accuse the authors publicly or communicate the allegation directly to the authors.

The Editorial Office will assess the concern under the journal's Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Text Recycling Policy and, where necessary, the Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

3.13 Review of References

Reviewers may recommend additional literature when it is genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

However, reviewers must not demand citation of:

  • their own work without legitimate scholarly justification;

  • unrelated publications;

  • publications solely to increase citation counts;

  • articles from a particular journal solely to improve journal metrics; or

  • sources that are unnecessary for the manuscript.

A reviewer should clearly explain why a suggested reference is relevant.

Requests for self-citation or journal citation made primarily to manipulate citation metrics constitute inappropriate reviewer conduct.

3.14 Use of Privileged Information

Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, commercial, or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not:

  • appropriate an unpublished idea;

  • use unpublished methods;

  • use unpublished data;

  • incorporate an author's argument into their own work before publication;

  • use information to advance competing research;

  • contact potential collaborators based on confidential information; or

  • exploit weaknesses identified in a competing manuscript.

The confidentiality of peer review protects both authors and the integrity of scholarly communication.

COPE explicitly prohibits reviewers from using information obtained during peer review for their own or another person's advantage.

3.15 Timeliness

Reviewers should respond promptly to invitations.

If accepting an invitation, reviewers should complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

If circumstances change, the reviewer should notify the editorial office as soon as possible.

A reviewer should request an extension when necessary rather than allowing the review to become substantially overdue without communication.

If unable to review, a reviewer may suggest alternative qualified reviewers where appropriate, provided that the recommendation is made without attempting to influence the editorial outcome.

COPE identifies timely communication and completion as important reviewer responsibilities.

3.16 Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may provide a recommendation to the editor where the review system requests one.

Possible recommendations may include:

  • accept;

  • minor revision;

  • major revision; or

  • reject.

The recommendation is advisory.

The reviewer must support the recommendation with substantive scholarly reasoning.

The reviewer should not assume that the editor is required to follow the recommendation.

3.17 Confidential Comments to the Editor

Where the review system provides a confidential field for editors, reviewers may use it to communicate concerns that are not appropriate for authors.

Such comments may include:

  • suspected publication misconduct;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • serious ethical concerns;

  • concerns about data integrity;

  • concerns about reviewability; or

  • other sensitive matters.

However, confidential comments should not contradict or substantially undermine comments provided to the authors without adequate explanation.

3.18 Reviewer Reports as Confidential Scholarly Communications

Reviewer reports are treated as confidential communications within the editorial process.

Reviewers should assume that comments intended for authors may be shared with the authors in anonymised form.

Reviewers should therefore ensure that the report:

  • does not contain identifying information;

  • does not reveal confidential information from another source;

  • does not contain inappropriate personal remarks;

  • does not include comments that compromise double anonymity; and

  • clearly distinguishes scholarly criticism from personal opinion.

3.19 Reviewer Copyright and Use of Review Reports

Review reports submitted to MAJIS are treated as confidential scholarly communications.

The journal may use review reports for the purpose of:

  • editorial decision-making;

  • communicating editorial decisions to authors;

  • maintaining editorial records;

  • resolving complaints or appeals;

  • investigating publication-ethics concerns; and

  • improving the peer review process.

Reviewers should not reproduce or distribute their reports outside the editorial process without appropriate permission.

Any publication or public disclosure of reviewer reports must follow the journal's applicable policies and the conditions under which the review was conducted.

4. Generative AI and Reviewer Responsibilities

4.1 General Principle

Peer review at MAJIS depends on human scholarly judgment, confidentiality, and accountability.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for their review reports and must not delegate substantive scholarly assessment to generative AI.

MAJIS's existing AI policy specifically requires reviewers not to upload manuscripts, review reports, questionnaires, or review correspondence to generative AI tools and not to use generative AI to perform scientific assessment or generate review conclusions.

4.2 Prohibition on Uploading Confidential Manuscripts

Reviewers must not upload:

  • the manuscript;

  • supplementary files;

  • unpublished data;

  • reviewer comments;

  • editorial correspondence;

  • decision letters; or

  • other confidential peer review material

to external generative AI systems.

This restriction applies even when the intended purpose is:

  • language editing;

  • summarisation;

  • grammar checking;

  • generating review comments;

  • identifying weaknesses; or

  • improving the structure of the review.

4.3 AI-Assisted Review

Reviewers must not use generative AI to:

  • generate the substantive evaluation of a manuscript;

  • determine whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected;

  • assess the validity of research findings;

  • independently assess methodological soundness;

  • generate confidential editorial recommendations; or

  • replace the reviewer's expert judgment.

Any permitted use of AI must comply with the journal's current AI Usage Policy and any specific instructions issued by the Editorial Office.

5. Reviewer Independence

Reviewers must maintain independence from:

  • authors;

  • publishers;

  • sponsors;

  • commercial interests;

  • institutional pressure; and

  • other parties seeking to influence the editorial outcome.

Reviewers should not attempt to influence the editor toward a predetermined decision for reasons unrelated to the manuscript's scholarly merit.

6. Reviewer Communication with Authors

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review unless explicitly authorised by the journal.

This includes:

  • requesting additional unpublished data directly from authors;

  • asking authors to identify themselves;

  • discussing disagreements;

  • offering collaboration;

  • proposing authorship changes;

  • seeking access to confidential materials; or

  • communicating an acceptance or rejection recommendation.

All communication should normally occur through the Editorial Office.

7. Reviewer Communication with Other Reviewers

Reviewers should not contact other reviewers to discuss a manuscript unless such interaction is explicitly facilitated or authorised by the journal.

Reviewers must not attempt to coordinate recommendations or influence the outcome of peer review.

If the journal introduces a structured reviewer discussion process, reviewers must follow the rules established for that process.

8. Reviewer Conduct and Citation Recommendations

Reviewers must not use their position to manipulate:

  • their own citation count;

  • the citation count of colleagues;

  • the journal's citation metrics;

  • the apparent impact of a particular publication; or

  • the bibliometric profile of an institution.

Citation recommendations should be made only when they materially improve the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

9. Review of Revised Manuscripts

When invited to review a revised manuscript, reviewers should:

  • assess whether the authors have responded adequately to substantive concerns;

  • distinguish unresolved major issues from minor matters;

  • avoid introducing entirely new requirements without good reason;

  • consider new evidence or explanations provided by the authors; and

  • remain consistent with the original review while recognising legitimate revisions.

Reviewers should not use a second-round review to impose personal preferences unrelated to the manuscript's scholarly quality.

10. Reviewer Disagreement

Reviewers may legitimately reach different conclusions about the same manuscript.

Disagreement does not itself indicate a problem with the peer review process.

The handling editor may:

  • evaluate the reports;

  • request clarification;

  • seek an additional review;

  • conduct an independent assessment; or

  • make a decision based on the available evidence.

Reviewers should therefore focus on providing a well-reasoned assessment rather than attempting to ensure that other reviewers reach the same conclusion.

11. Editorial Management of Reviewer Reports

The handling editor is responsible for evaluating reviewer reports in context.

The editor may:

  • request clarification from reviewers;

  • seek an additional review;

  • disregard inappropriate comments;

  • remove comments that breach confidentiality or ethical standards;

  • moderate offensive language; or

  • consider reviewer recommendations alongside the editor's own assessment.

MAJIS's existing policy permits the editorial office to edit reviews for tone, confidentiality, or policy compliance without changing their substantive meaning, with notification to reviewers where substantial edits are made.

12. Repeated Reviewer Non-Compliance

MAJIS may suspend or discontinue invitations to a reviewer who repeatedly:

  • breaches confidentiality;

  • submits abusive or discriminatory reviews;

  • fails to disclose conflicts of interest;

  • repeatedly misses agreed deadlines without communication;

  • delegates reviews without permission;

  • misuses confidential information;

  • uses AI in violation of the journal's policy;

  • attempts to manipulate editorial decisions; or

  • engages in other serious ethical misconduct.

Where appropriate, serious cases may be referred under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

13. Reviewer Recognition

MAJIS values the contribution of peer reviewers to the quality and integrity of the journal.

Where the journal recognises reviewers publicly, such recognition must respect:

  • reviewer confidentiality;

  • the double-anonymous review model;

  • reviewer consent;

  • applicable privacy requirements; and

  • the integrity of the peer review process.

Public recognition does not imply disclosure of which reviewer assessed a particular manuscript.

14. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

14.1 Reviewer Invitation

The editorial system should provide prospective reviewers with:

  • the manuscript title;

  • abstract or appropriate summary;

  • expected review deadline;

  • relevant reviewer instructions;

  • confidentiality requirements;

  • conflict-of-interest requirements;

  • applicable AI restrictions; and

  • instructions for accepting or declining the invitation.

Reviewers should assess their suitability before accepting.

14.2 Reviewer Acceptance

Before accepting a review, the reviewer should confirm:

  1. that they have sufficient expertise;

  2. that they can complete the review within the stated timeframe;

  3. that they have no significant conflict of interest;

  4. that they will maintain confidentiality;

  5. that they will not delegate the review without permission;

  6. that they will not misuse information obtained during review; and

  7. that they will comply with MAJIS's AI and publication-ethics requirements.

14.3 Reviewer Declaration

MAJIS may require reviewers to confirm:

Reviewer Ethical Declaration

I confirm that I have sufficient expertise to assess this manuscript and that I can provide an objective and constructive review.

I have disclosed any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. I will maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all materials associated with the peer review process.

I will not use information obtained through the review for personal or professional advantage, will not share the manuscript or its contents with unauthorised persons, and will not delegate the review without prior permission from the journal.

I will provide an evidence-based and respectful assessment and will report any suspected publication-ethics concerns confidentially to the editor.

I will comply with the journal's policy concerning the use of generative AI and will not upload confidential manuscript or peer-review materials to external AI systems.

14.4 Reviewer Assessment Form

Where appropriate, the reviewer form should invite assessment of:

A. Originality

  • Is the manuscript sufficiently original?

  • Does it provide a meaningful scholarly contribution?

B. Relevance

  • Is the manuscript relevant to MAJIS's scope?

C. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

  • Is the theoretical or conceptual foundation appropriate?

D. Methodology

  • Is the research design or analytical approach appropriate and sufficiently explained?

E. Analysis

  • Is the argument or interpretation supported by adequate evidence?

F. Literature

  • Is the relevant literature adequately considered?

G. Presentation

  • Is the manuscript clearly and coherently presented?

H. Ethical Issues

  • Are there ethical or publication-integrity concerns?

I. Recommendation

  • Accept;

  • Minor revision;

  • Major revision; or

  • Reject.

The final editorial decision remains with the editor.

14.5 Review Report Structure

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their reports as follows:

General Assessment

Provide a concise assessment of the manuscript's overall contribution.

Major Comments

Identify issues that materially affect:

  • originality;

  • argument;

  • theoretical framework;

  • methodology;

  • evidence;

  • analysis;

  • interpretation;

  • ethical integrity; or

  • scholarly significance.

Minor Comments

Identify matters such as:

  • clarity;

  • terminology;

  • organisation;

  • references;

  • typographical errors; or

  • presentation.

Recommendation

Provide a recommendation consistent with the substantive assessment.

14.6 Confidential Ethical Concerns

Where a reviewer suspects serious misconduct, the reviewer should:

  1. identify the concern;

  2. provide the relevant evidence or source where available;

  3. explain why the concern may affect the manuscript's integrity;

  4. submit the concern confidentially to the editor; and

  5. refrain from contacting the authors or investigating independently unless instructed.

This approach is consistent with COPE guidance.

14.7 Reviewer Deadline Management

The Editorial Office should monitor:

  • invitation date;

  • acceptance date;

  • agreed deadline;

  • extension requests;

  • submission date of the review; and

  • reviewer response history.

If a review becomes overdue, the Editorial Office may:

  • send a reminder;

  • grant an extension;

  • request the reviewer to decline;

  • invite another reviewer; or

  • take another appropriate editorial action.

14.8 Reviewer Confidentiality in the Editorial System

The Editorial Office should configure the journal's editorial management system to protect reviewer identities under the double-anonymous model.

Reviewer information should not be visible to authors through:

  • reviewer comments;

  • file metadata;

  • document properties;

  • uploaded attachments;

  • system-generated correspondence; or

  • other technical elements.

Reviewers should also avoid including identifying information in their reports.

14.9 Handling Reviewer Misconduct

Where reviewer misconduct is suspected, the Editor-in-Chief or designated Research Integrity Editor may:

  • preserve relevant records;

  • review the reviewer assignment and correspondence;

  • assess the nature of the concern;

  • request an explanation from the reviewer;

  • remove the reviewer from the manuscript;

  • replace the review where necessary;

  • disregard an affected review;

  • suspend future invitations; or

  • initiate a formal investigation under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

Where appropriate, the journal may notify relevant institutions or organisations.

15. Responsibilities of the Editor

The editor is responsible for ensuring that reviewers are:

  • appropriately qualified;

  • sufficiently independent;

  • appropriately matched to the manuscript;

  • informed of their responsibilities;

  • given sufficient information to conduct the review; and

  • managed consistently.

The editor must also protect reviewers from inappropriate pressure from authors or other parties.

16. Responsibilities of the Journal

MAJIS is responsible for providing reviewers with:

  • clear reviewer instructions;

  • appropriate confidentiality guidance;

  • conflict-of-interest requirements;

  • ethical-review guidance;

  • relevant manuscript information;

  • reasonable deadlines;

  • appropriate communication channels; and

  • a mechanism for reporting ethical concerns.

The journal should periodically review its reviewer guidance and update it when relevant publication-ethics standards evolve.

17. Relationship with Other MAJIS Policies

This policy should be read together with the following MAJIS policies:

  • Peer Review Process

  • Conflicts of Interest

  • Allegations of Misconduct

  • Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Text Recycling

  • Ethical Oversight

  • Generative AI

  • Complaints and Appeals

  • Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

  • Retraction and Expression of Concern

Where a reviewer identifies a concern covered by another policy, the relevant policy should be applied.

18. Final Statement

Peer review is a position of scholarly trust. Reviewers appointed by Magistra Andalusia: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra (MAJIS) are expected to exercise independent academic judgment while protecting the confidentiality, dignity, and rights of authors.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts on their scholarly merits, provide constructive and evidence-based criticism, disclose conflicts of interest, maintain confidentiality, respect agreed deadlines, and report suspected publication-ethics concerns to the editorial team.

Reviewers must not use privileged information for personal or professional advantage, must not appropriate unpublished ideas or data, must not delegate reviews without permission, and must not attempt to manipulate editorial outcomes.

Particular care is required under MAJIS's double-anonymous review model. Reviewers should respect author anonymity and must notify the editor if knowledge of an author's identity creates a potential conflict of interest.

The journal also recognises that peer review increasingly operates within an environment involving generative AI and other automated technologies. Confidential manuscripts and peer-review materials must therefore be protected from unauthorised disclosure to external AI systems. Reviewers remain personally accountable for the substance, accuracy, fairness, and ethical integrity of their review reports.

MAJIS considers reviewer ethics to be an integral part of the journal's publication-ethics framework. Serious violations of reviewer responsibilities may result in removal from a review assignment, suspension of reviewer invitations, correction of affected editorial processes, or further investigation under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

This policy has been developed with reference to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and relevant COPE Core Practices. It is intended to support a peer review process that is rigorous, fair, confidential, constructive, and accountable while preserving the integrity of the scholarly record.