Reviewers – Conflicts of Interest Policy

Before accepting an invitation to review, you should be confident in your ability to assess each abstract impartially.  It is expected that reviewers will treat all abstracts reviewed fairly without any favour or prejudice.

The following situations are considered conflicts and should be avoided:

  • Co-authoring publications with at least one of the authors in the past 3 years
  • Being colleagues within the same section/department or similar organisational unit in the past 3 years
  • Supervising/having supervised the doctoral work of the author(s) or being supervised/having been supervised by the author(s)
  • Receiving professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
  • Having a personal relationship (e.g. family, close friend) with the author(s)
  • Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the abstract being reviewed

It is not considered a Conflict of Interest if the reviewer has worked together with the author(s) in a collaborative project or if they have co-organized an event. Reviewers are expected to regard the work being reviewed as confidential and not to discuss it with others and to keep their own identity from authors.

In the event that any of the above conflicts of interest materialise, reviewers are requested to decline the invitation to review the abstract in question. When assigned abstracts for review, reviewers are required to accept or decline the invitation for each one.

If in doubt, please email the BELMAS office for advice (