Purpose and Scope
This policy establishes the minimum standards governing peer review at every journal operating under the LMI publishing framework, and the conduct obligations of every person who accepts a review invitation for an LMI journal, from acceptance of the invitation until all obligations arising from it conclude.
Transparency of the Review Model
Each journal shall choose its own peer-review model and shall publicly and accurately state: the model it actually uses; whether and at which stages author and reviewer identities are concealed or disclosed; and the general role reviewer assessments play in editorial decisions. The published description shall correspond to actual practice, using terminology consistent with recognised peer-review vocabulary, and any change of model shall be publicly announced before it applies to new submissions. LMI does not mandate a single model across its journals; it mandates that the declared model be true.
Editorial Use of Peer Review
Peer-review reports are expert advice, not votes that bind the editor. The handling editor remains accountable for the decision and may depart from a recommendation where there is a documented scholarly, ethical or procedural reason. A favourable report creates no entitlement to acceptance, and an adverse report does not automatically require rejection. Where reports materially conflict, lack necessary expertise, or raise unresolved methodological or ethical issues, the editor should seek additional review or specialist advice rather than select whichever recommendation is more convenient.
Content Outside Ordinary External Peer Review
Commissioned editorials, invited commentaries, corrections, retraction notices and other content may follow a process different from ordinary external peer review. Each journal shall disclose the process actually applied, including on the published item where readers could otherwise assume external review. Commissioned or invited status, inclusion in a special issue, or authorship by a recognised expert does not exempt content from applicable authorship, competing-interest, originality, research-ethics and record-integrity requirements.
Reviewer Selection and Verification
- Competence. Reviewers shall have expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject and methods.
- Independence. Reviewers shall be reasonably independent of the authors; competing interests are disclosed and managed under E1, and a reviewer with a disqualifying conflict shall not review.
- Verification proportionate to risk. Reviewer identities and contact details shall be verified with diligence proportionate to manipulation risk — with particular caution toward author-suggested reviewers, non-institutional email addresses and newly created accounts. Author-suggested reviewers may inform, but never bind, selection.
- No fabricated identities. Inviting, accepting or crediting a review under a false, borrowed or compromised identity is prohibited and shall be treated under the manipulation provisions below.
- No predetermined outcomes. A reviewer shall not be selected because they are expected to deliver a particular recommendation.
LMI prescribes no fixed number of reviewers or review timelines; each journal shall state its own practice.
Reviewer Conduct Obligations
- maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, its data and the review process in accordance with A5, and use nothing from an unpublished manuscript for personal or competitive advantage, including appropriation of ideas, data or methods;
- disclose promptly any inability to review competently or on time, and any competing interest, under E1;
- review objectively and constructively, addressing the work rather than the authors, in respectful language free of personal attack or discriminatory remarks;
- not request citation of their own or associates' work except where genuinely necessary to the scholarly assessment, and never as a condition of a favourable recommendation — coercive citation is a manipulation offence (C3);
- not contact authors directly about the manuscript outside authorised journal channels;
- not delegate the review or involve any co-reviewer without the journal's permission, and where co-reviewing is permitted, ensure the contribution is transparently attributed;
- not use AI tools in breach of the confidentiality rule below.
A person who accepts a review invitation for an LMI journal shall observe each of the above obligations.
Editing and Transmission of Reviewer Reports
A journal may withhold or edit wording in a reviewer report that is abusive, discriminatory, defamatory, reveals confidential information or improperly identifies a protected reviewer. Any editing shall be limited to the problematic material, shall not alter the substantive scholarly assessment or recommendation, and shall be documented. Where practicable, the reviewer should be asked to revise the report or informed of a material editorial edit.
Revised Manuscripts and Additional Review
A revised manuscript may be returned to one or more original reviewers where their expertise remains relevant and the revision materially affects the matters they assessed. Limited or clearly responsive changes may be decided editorially without further external review; substantial new analyses, data, methods or conclusions may require additional review. Where an original reviewer is unavailable, conflicted or no longer suitable, another qualified reviewer may be invited. Reviewer recommendations do not operate as votes, and a request for further review shall be based on scholarly need rather than used to delay a decision.
Review Records, Reports and Permitted Use
Journals shall retain sufficient review records to demonstrate the declared process, resolve complaints, investigate manipulation and support assurance, subject to the confidentiality and retention requirements of A5. Acceptance of a review invitation authorises the journal to use the report for editorial decision-making, revision, complaints, integrity assessment and internal quality assurance. A confidential report shall not be published, licensed, transferred to another journal or used in training material without a lawful basis and the reviewer’s permission, except where the journal’s publicly declared review model or a transparent manuscript-transfer process expressly provides otherwise.
Artificial Intelligence in Review
The framework governing AI use is C4 and is not restated here. Its review application is absolute on one point: reviewers and editors shall not enter a confidential manuscript, its data, or review materials into any public or uncontrolled generative-AI system (A5, C4). Any permitted assistive use must comply with C4's disclosure and accountability requirements and never substitutes for the reviewer's own assessment.
Review Manipulation
The following are prohibited and shall be treated as serious integrity matters: fabricated or impersonated reviewer identities; use of compromised reviewer accounts; author-controlled reviewer email addresses or communication channels; undisclosed reviewer rings and reciprocal reviewing arrangements; coercive citation; and any scheme designed to produce a predetermined review outcome. Journals shall maintain screening practices proportionate to these risks and shall report detected manipulation to LMI. Where manipulation extends beyond the review process — paper-mill activity, citation manipulation, sold authorship — the matter is governed by C3; investigations follow C5, including due process and evidence preservation (A5).
Reviewer Recognition
Journals may operate reviewer acknowledgement, certificates and service records as implementation matters. Recognition practices shall not disclose confidential associations contrary to the journal's declared model, shall not be sold, and shall not be conditioned on favourable recommendations.
Publisher and Journal Responsibilities
LMI shall support review integrity through platform controls, cross-journal pattern analysis (C3) and monitoring under H2. Each journal shall publish its review-model statement, implement reviewer selection and conduct standards through its own procedures, retain review records appropriate to integrity and assurance needs, and escalate manipulation concerns.
Standards and Guidance
Informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the COPE Core Practices, the ICMJE Recommendations on the role of reviewers, and the ANSI/NISO Peer Review Terminology Standard.