ICR Publications Ltd UK

Author Resources

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. Some editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with the editor to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

The Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Journal Peer Review Process

This policy has been triggered by the rise of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies* and aims to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, editors, and reviewers. ICR Publications (ICRP) will monitor ongoing developments in this area closely and will adjust or refine the policy as appropriate. The following guidance is specifically for reviewers.

When a researcher is invited to review another researcher’s paper, the manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool, as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights. This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, reviewers should not upload their peer review report into an AI tool, even if it is just to improve language and readability.

Peer review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem, and ICRP abides by the highest standards of integrity in this process. Reviewing a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of a paper, as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for peer review are outside the scope of this technology. There is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report.

ICRP’s AI author policy states that authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission, but only to improve the language and readability of their paper and with the appropriate disclosure, as per our instructions in ICRP’s Guide for Authors. Reviewers can find such disclosure at the bottom of the paper in a separate section before the list of references.

Please note that ICRP employs identity-protected AI-assisted technologies such as those used during the screening process to conduct completeness and plagiarism checks and identify suitable reviewers. These in-house or licensed technologies respect author confidentiality. Our programs are subject to rigorous evaluations of bias and comply with data privacy and data security requirements.

ICRP embraces new AI-driven technologies that support reviewers and editors in the editorial process and continues to develop and adopt in-house or licensed technologies that respect the confidentiality and data privacy rights of authors, reviewers, and editors.

*Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce various types of content, including text, imagery, audio, and synthetic data. Examples include ChatGPT, NovelAI, Jasper AI, Rytr AI, DALL-E, etc.

Alertness to Ethical Issues

A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Standards of Objectivity and Competing Interests

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should consult the editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).

References

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Confidentiality

The Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Journal Peer Review Process

Alertness to Ethical Issues

Standards of Objectivity and Competing Interests