Purpose and decision boundary
Competing interests are circumstances that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, an assessment. They may be financial or non-financial. A relationship need not have caused actual bias to warrant disclosure.
Reviewers identify and disclose relevant circumstances; editors determine whether to proceed, impose safeguards or invite another reviewer. Reviewers must not privately substitute their own confidence in impartiality for disclosure.
Screen before accepting and remain alert
Review the invitation’s subject, likely authors where known, sponsors, competing technologies and any relationships relevant to the manuscript. Make this assessment before accessing more confidential material than necessary.
A conflict may become apparent only after reading the full manuscript. Inform the editor promptly when new information changes the assessment; do not wait until submitting the report.
Financial relationships
Consider employment, consulting, honoraria, advisory roles, equity, stock options, patents, licensing, paid testimony and financial relationships involving the topic, product or competing product.
Report the nature of the interest, its relevance and timing. A journal may request additional details or a formal disclosure form. Do not assume that a small amount or an indirect relationship is always immaterial.
Funding, institutional and commercial ties
Research grants, sponsored projects, shared contracts and institutional commercial partnerships can matter when they create dependence or an interest in the study outcome.
A reviewer may not personally receive a payment yet still have a relevant institutional role. Explain the connection factually so the editor can assess proximity and significance.
Recent collaboration and coauthorship
Recent coauthorship, active projects, shared grants and regular collaboration can compromise—or appear to compromise—independent review. Relevant time windows differ by journal and discipline.
Disclose the type and recency of collaboration instead of inventing a universal exclusion period. In small specialties, the editor may need to balance expertise against relationships transparently.
Mentoring, supervision and career dependence
Current or recent supervisory, trainee, employment, promotion or assessment relationships can create pressure or perceived loyalty. The concern can run in either direction.
If you recognize a current or former mentor, trainee or supervisor, explain the relationship and timing to the editor. Do not continue simply because the review model was intended to conceal identities.
Competition and overlapping unpublished research
Direct competition involving a similar unpublished study, patent, grant or commercial development may create incentives beyond normal scholarly disagreement.
Competition does not automatically disqualify everyone working in the same field. Explain concrete overlap and any consequential stake. Never accept review to obtain early access to another team’s work.
Personal relationships and serious disputes
Close friendships, family ties, personal relationships, ongoing litigation, public disputes or sustained professional antagonism may affect impartiality or its appearance.
Disclose the relevant relationship without unnecessary private detail. The editor can decide whether a different reviewer is appropriate.
Intellectual and strongly held positions
A scientific perspective is not itself misconduct or necessarily a conflict. However, public advocacy, involvement in a disputed guideline or a commitment tied to the outcome may merit disclosure when unusually close to the manuscript.
Review the evidence on its merits. Distinguish disagreement with a hypothesis from an inability to assess the work fairly.
Institutional proximity
Working at the same institution, within the same research unit or under a shared governance structure may create professional dependence or privileged access.
Follow journal-specific exclusion rules where they exist. If an institutional relationship is indirect or uncertain, provide the editor with enough context to decide.
Blinded review and accidental recognition
Do not search deliberately for identities in an anonymized process. Recognition may occur through references, datasets, preprints or specialized methods.
If recognition reveals a potential conflict, contact the editor without investigating further. Anonymity does not cancel the duty to disclose.
Preprints, conferences and prior discussions
Seeing a preprint, conference presentation or earlier version does not automatically preclude review, but direct involvement in developing the work or extensive private feedback may create a relevant relationship.
Explain prior contact when it could affect independence or reveal confidential information. Do not disclose unpublished information obtained through other confidential processes.
Suggested reviewers and editorial connections
An invitation from a familiar editor or recommendation by a colleague should not alter your conflict assessment. Relationships with editorial decision-makers can also be relevant in unusual circumstances.
Do not coordinate recommendations with other reviewers or authors. If a relationship with an editor creates pressure or an appearance of partiality, disclose it through the journal.
Distinguish disclosure from recusal
Disclosure gives the editor information; recusal is a possible outcome. A disclosed relationship is not automatically permission to continue, nor does every remote connection require withdrawal.
Pause substantive work when a material issue is unresolved. Follow the editor’s determination and any journal rules rather than negotiating privately with authors.
How to write a useful disclosure
Identify the relationship, the person or organization involved when appropriate, the approximate timeframe and why it may relate to the manuscript. Keep the statement factual and proportionate.
If there is no relevant interest after a reasonable check, complete the journal’s negative declaration if requested. An empty form is not a substitute for examining your circumstances.
Conflicts discovered after acceptance
Stop and notify the editor promptly when a previously unknown relationship, competing study or commercial interest emerges. State how much of the review has already been completed.
The editor may reassign the manuscript, request a limited review or apply another safeguard. Preserve confidentiality regardless of the outcome.
Conflicts in co-review and trainee involvement
Authorized co-reviewers must assess and disclose their own relevant interests. The invited reviewer’s declaration does not cover another person automatically.
Obtain editor approval before sharing the manuscript, identify contributors as required and do not use a trainee or colleague to bypass a recusal decision.
AI vendors, software and tool-related interests
Financial or professional relationships with an AI vendor, analytical platform, medical device manufacturer or software provider may matter when the manuscript evaluates that product or a competitor.
A conflict disclosure is separate from permission to use the tool. Confidential manuscript material must not be sent to an external service unless the journal’s confidentiality and AI rules permit it.
Fair assessment after a managed disclosure
When the editor permits a review despite a disclosed relationship, apply the same evidentiary standards as for any other manuscript. Do not advocate for preferred outcomes or demand unnecessary analyses or citations.
Document concrete methodological reasons for important criticism. Avoid using confidential editorial channels to influence the decision through unsupported claims.
Undisclosed interests and corrective action
If you realize that a relevant relationship was omitted from your declaration, correct the record immediately—even if the report has already been submitted.
The editor determines whether the report remains usable and whether further action is needed. Do not attempt to conceal the omission or contact authors outside the editorial process.
Treata implementation and final audit
Before acceptance and again before submission, check financial, professional, personal, institutional and intellectual relationships; co-reviewer interests; and any relevant vendor connections.
Treata’s reviewer guidance should be read with the publisher-wide Competing Interests and Peer Review policies and each journal’s specific disclosure rules. The editor—not the reviewer—makes the final conflict-management decision.