Publication Ethics and Malpractice: Reviewers

Reviewers are encouraged to do a prompt initial assessment of whether the work they have been selected to review falls outside of their expertise or will be impossible for them to review within the posted timeframe. In either case they should notify the Editor(s) and decline to participate further in the review process.

Hume Studies aims to have submissions assessed by blind review but some circumstances (such as prior conference presentation or pre-print posting) can make this difficult. Reviewers who are certain they know the identity of the Author should notify the Editor(s), who will advise whether to proceed.

Reviewers should declare potential conflicts of interest to the Editor(s) before agreeing to review a manuscript and should discuss with the Editor(s) whether they need to recuse themselves because there may be a concern of potential bias. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) collaborations between the Reviewer and Author(s) in the previous three years, Reviewers and Author(s) who are based in the same institution, and Reviewers and Author(s) who have close personal relationships or associations. The positive or negative treatment of the Reviewer’s work by the Author is not by itself a conflict of interest, but Reviewers who feel that any such treatment has made it impossible for them to conduct an objective review should recuse themselves.

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the Author(s) directly without permission from the Editor(s).

Reviewers must not use AI tools to generate their reports. They must not upload files, images or information from unpublished manuscripts into generative AI tools, be it in whole or in part. Reviewers are asked to revisit our AI Usage Policy prior to any new task as changes in the field or current understanding of best practices may require updates.

Reviewers should treat Authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and observe good reviewing etiquette. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should not suggest citations to the Reviewer’s (or their associates’) work unless the suggested citations bear importantly on the work. Citation recommendations should not be made with the intention of increasing the Reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). Requests for such citations can raise ethical concerns and may be seen as a conflict of interest or a source of bias. To ensure transparency and enable editorial oversight, Reviewers who suggest citations must provide complete bibliographic details and a clear justification for each recommended reference. Editors may remove citations that, in their view, are inappropriate from Reviewer comments.