Code of Conduct for Reviewers and Meta-Reviewers

(1) Conduct peer review responsibly: It is important that peer reviewers are fair, rigorous and timely in their review. Peer reviewers must: 

• Inform themselves about the criteria to be applied in the peer review process,

• Review research objectively, impartially and in accordance with the review criteria,

• Avoid minimal reviews that do not justify the evaluation or score. 

• Apply standards equally to all research under their review, 

• Support claims with evidence or references when questioning novelty, prior work, or factual correctness. Where possible, cite specific papers, datasets, or methods to substantiate the critique. 

• Properly consider research that challenges or changes accepted ways of thinking, which may include innovative, interdisciplinary, collaborative research or replication studies, including those showing null results or results opposite from previous findings.

(2) Maintain professionalism: The tone of the review comments must be fair and professional. Peer reviews should

• Use constructive and respectful language that supports the author’s development.

• Avoid offensive, dismissive, or overly harsh language, and ensure that even critical comments are delivered in a professional and collegial tone

• Not allow personal prejudice to influence the process and be aware of how their own biases (conscious or unconscious) could affect the peer review process, including in relation to gender, ethnicity, nationality, institutional employer and research discipline.

(3) Citation coercion: Peer reviewers should not suggest irrelevant references or an excessive number of references. 

• Suggestions to add more references should be accompanied by a justification on why the references should be added.  

• Reviewers must not suggest their own publications unless directly relevant and necessary for the research being evaluated. Self-citation suggestions should be limited to cases where the reviewer's work provides essential methodological background, comparative baselines, or addresses gaps in the literature review that would genuinely strengthen the manuscript.

(4) Breach of confidentiality: Peer reviewers must treat the article under review as a confidential document.

• Reviewers cannot use any non-public information contained in an article to advance their own research or financial interests.

• Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process and must not disclose or share the content of any material under review or the outcome of any review process until it is published and publicly available, and 

• The unauthorised disclosure of information is a breach of confidentiality and, potentially, a breach of this Code of Conduct.  

(5) Conflicts of interest: Peer reviewers must disclose interests and abide by any requirements established to manage conflicts of interest. Reviewers are expected to decline a review invitation if they have a conflict of interest or other source of potential bias. Examples of a conflict of interest include:

• Being in the same research group

• Collaborate closely and/or recently co-author papers with an author 

• If any of the authors are advisors or students,

• Having a personal relationship or friendship with an author,

• Being in direct competition with the authors, and

• Having financial interests which means that the reviewer may gain or lose money depending on whether the article is accepted (please contact the ISCA Ethics Committee if clarification is needed).

(6) Peer reviewers must not: 

• contact the author/s or other reviewers unless authorised to do so,

• seek to unduly influence the review process,

• delegate their responsibilities or ask others to assist with a review, unless authorised to do so,

• consider factors that are not relevant to the review criteria,

• conduct a review for which one lacks appropriate expertise, or

• intentionally delay the review process. 

(7) Manuscripts or parts of the manuscripts under review must never be uploaded to public or commercial GenAI platforms that transmit data externally, retain inputs for training, or lack confidentiality agreements. Their use is permitted only on firewall-protected or institutionally approved systems that guarantee confidentiality. When GenAI is used, it should be under the following restrictions:

• GenAI cannot be used to assess the originality, novelty, or correctness of the manuscript.

• GenAI outputs cannot be used as authoritative scientific evidence.

• Peer reviewers should verify that GenAI outputs do not introduce or reinforce bias against methodological approaches, demographic groups, or research paradigms used in the manuscript.

• Any use of GenAI must be acknowledged in the review with a sentence summarizing how it was used.

• Peer reviewers will remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and professionalism of the review, regardless of GenAI assistance.

• 
  

(8) Breaches of the Code - Any peer reviewers who violate the code of conduct will be reported to the ISCA Ethics Committee. The Committee will conduct a detailed and timely investigation into the reviews flagged as problematic, ensuring that all relevant parties are given an opportunity to be heard and that conclusions are based on evidence. The ISCA Ethics Committee reserves the right to make final determinations in all such cases. Possible sanctions for reviewers found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct include:

• Removal from the reviewer list of ISCA events, 

• Being blacklisted as an author and session chair at ISCA events, 

• Restrictions on future roles in ISCA conference, workshop and/or session organization,

• Exclusion from participation in future ISCA conferences, sessions and/or workshops, and/or 

• Formal notification to the ISCA Board for further action if warranted.