Reviewer pem

Reviewers are encouraged to do a prompt initial assessment of whether the work they have been selected to review falls outside of their expertise or will be impossible for them to review within the posted timeframe. In either case they should notify the editor and decline to participate further in the review process.

Hume Studies aims to have submissions assessed by blind review but some circumstances (such as prior conference presentation or pre-print posting) can make this difficult. Reviewers who are certain they know the identity of the author should notify the editors, who will advise whether to proceed.

Reviewers should declare potential conflicts of interest to the editor before agreeing to review a manuscript and should discuss with the editor whether they need to recuse themselves because there may be a concern of potential bias. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) collaborations between the reviewer and author(s) in the previous three years, reviewers and author(s) who are based in the same institution, and reviewers and authors who have close personal relationships or associations. The positive or negative treatment of the reviewer’s work by the author is not by itself a conflict of interest, but reviewers who feel that any such treatment has made it impossible for them to conduct an objective review should recuse themselves.

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. They must not upload files, images or information from unpublished manuscripts into generative AI tools, be it in whole or in part. AI tools can seize ownership of material uploaded to them. Where the material is the original work of an author the tool could use that material for training (influencing its responses to subsequent queries), apply very liberal open access licencing (allowing unattributed use) to the material, or prohibit others (including Hume Studies) from publishing it. Aside from the risk of violating the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, uploading it to an AI tool may breach data privacy rights. This 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 for the purpose of improving language and readability. Reviewers are asked to revisit our AI Policy statement prior to any new task as changes in the field or current understanding of best practices may require updates.

Reviewers should treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and observe good reviewing etiquette. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, and reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should not suggest citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work unless the suggested citations are for genuine scientific reasons. Citation recommendations should not be made with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). Requests for such citations can raise ethical concerns and may be seen as a conflict of interest or a source of bias. To ensure transparency and enable editorial oversight, reviewers who suggest citations must provide complete bibliographic details and a clear justification for each recommended reference. Editors may remove citations that, in their view, are inappropriate from reviewer comments.