Code of Conduct

Loud opinions, rigorous arguments, zero abuse. These rules apply to everyone — authors, reviewers, editors, admins — and they are conditions of using the platform.

1. Review the work, not the person

Criticism must be specific, evidenced, and aimed at the manuscript. Harassment, discrimination, or personal attacks end your access. One warning at most.

2. Disclose every conflict

Financial interests, collaborations within 3 years, institutional rivalries, personal relationships — disclose them. Authors disclose in the submission declarations; reviewers must decline assignments where they are conflicted. Hidden conflicts void reviews and can void acceptances.

3. Confidentiality until decision

Reviews go public after the editorial decision. Before that, the manuscript and the review thread are confidential. Don't scoop, don't leak, don't use privileged data.

4. Integrity of data and authorship

No fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or gift authorship. Reviewers who suspect misconduct flag it with the severity marker in the review form; editors escalate. Confirmed misconduct is recorded publicly on the paper's record.

5. Ethics approvals are non-negotiable

Clinical, human-subjects, or animal work must carry an ethics/IRB approval statement. The platform blocks submissions without one, and reviewers verify the statement matches the methods.

6. Published ≠ prescribed

Nothing published here is medical advice. Authors must not present findings as clinical recommendations, and the platform labels every paper accordingly.

Reporting

Violations: conduct@reviewslave.dev. Reports are read by admins only, handled confidentially, and answered within 7 days.