Plain-language rule: Review confidentially, independently, competently, respectfully and on time. A reviewer advises; the editor decides. Payment never buys a favourable recommendation.
1. Purpose and scope
This Code applies to everyone reviewing topics, abstracts, proposals, manuscripts, research outputs or scholarly services through ResearchBridge Africa, whether volunteer or paid. It works with the Peer-Review, Plagiarism and AI-Use, Privacy, Complaints, and Refund and Payout policies.
2. Core duties
3. Accepting an invitation
Before accepting, confirm suitable expertise, adequate time, independence, secure handling and willingness to follow this Code. Accept or decline within 3 calendar days. Decline promptly where the work is outside your expertise, the deadline is unrealistic, confidentiality cannot be protected or impartial review is impossible.
4. Conflicts of interest
Disclose actual, potential or perceived conflicts, including personal, family, supervisory, financial or adversarial relationships; recent collaboration or shared grants; direct competition; involvement in the work; or knowledge that compromises anonymity. The editor—not the reviewer—decides whether a conflict can be managed. Stop and notify the editor if a conflict appears later.
5. Confidentiality and security
- Use only authorised accounts, devices and platform channels.
- Do not share, photograph, forward or retain material beyond the review’s needs.
- Do not reveal protected identities, recommendations or correspondence.
- Delete local copies when instructed, unless evidence preservation is authorised.
- Report accidental disclosure, lost devices or suspicious access promptly.
Confidentiality continues after completion, rejection, withdrawal or a declined invitation.
6. Responsible AI and assistance
Never upload confidential submissions, participant data, reviewer identities or unpublished findings to a public or unapproved AI tool. Approved AI may assist only a limited task; it cannot replace independent reading or responsibility. Material AI assistance must be disclosed, checked for accuracy and bias, and never serve as the sole basis for criticism, misconduct claims or recommendations. Human delegation, translation or specialist assistance also requires prior permission where it exposes protected material.
7. The review report
Use the supplied rubric and submission category. Identify strengths, explain concerns with examples, separate required corrections from optional suggestions, distinguish research-quality issues from language preferences, acknowledge limits in your expertise and support the recommendation with reasons. Developmental review should teach without rewriting the work for the author.
8. Respect, fairness and inclusion
Address the work, not the author’s worth or identity. Do not discriminate based on nationality, ethnicity, race, sex, gender, disability, age, religion, political belief, institution, language background, economic status or career stage. Firm, evidenced criticism is permitted; sarcasm, ridicule, degrading language, unsupported allegations and intimidation are not.
9. Citations and authorship
Suggest only genuinely relevant sources and explain their relevance. Do not require unnecessary citations, inflate citations to yourself or associates, suppress competing scholarship, or make acceptance depend on citation. Never demand authorship or acknowledgement for a favourable review.
10. Integrity concerns
Report possible plagiarism, fabrication, unethical research, privacy exposure, duplicate submission, authorship abuse or review manipulation confidentially to the editor with specific evidence. A concern is not a finding. Do not investigate privately, contact institutions or participants, confront the author, publish allegations or attempt to identify anonymous parties.
11. Recommendations and authority
Use the available categories—Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Reject, or Refer for ethics or integrity assessment—and ensure the recommendation matches the report. Reviewers advise; editors decide. Do not promise publication, change a recommendation for improper reasons, pressure an editor or retaliate over a different decision.
12. Timeliness and withdrawal
Complete a standard review within 14 calendar days after acceptance. Request an extension promptly; up to 7 calendar days may normally be granted. A reviewer may withdraw for competence, conflict, health, safety or capacity reasons so a replacement can be appointed.
13. Prohibited conduct
14. Payment and independence
Compensation recognises verified work under approved service terms. It must not depend on acceptance, rejection or a particular recommendation. Reviewers may not negotiate privately with authors or bypass invoice, wallet and Finance Centre controls. Earnings may be held temporarily while documented completion, quality, conflict, refund, fraud or misconduct concerns receive fair review.
15. Reporting and non-retaliation
Report confidentiality breaches, manipulation, conflicts, improper influence, harassment or safety risks through the editor, Help Center or complaints route. Good-faith reporting, declining a conflicted review, requesting accessibility support or disagreeing respectfully with an editor must not lead to retaliation. Knowingly false evidence, malicious complaints and retaliation may lead to action.
16. Fair investigation, sanctions and appeal
Before a material adverse finding, the reviewer ordinarily receives the concern, relevant non-confidential evidence, a reasonable opportunity to respond and an impartial decision. Urgent temporary safeguards may protect confidentiality, safety or evidence without presuming misconduct.
Proportionate outcomes include advice, training, correction, warning, supervision, reassignment, suspension, removal from the reviewer pool, access restriction, wallet correction or referral under another policy. A reviewer may appeal within 15 business days for factual error, procedural unfairness, unmanaged conflict, overlooked evidence or disproportionate outcome. An independent person should decide the appeal with written reasons.
17. Records and governance
ResearchBridge Africa may monitor timeliness, completeness, report quality, conflicts, confidentiality and conduct, but not reward acceptance or rejection recommendations. Material declarations, reports, communications, concerns, decisions, appeals and payment actions must be retained in role-restricted records and the Audit Trail. The Academic Quality Lead oversees this Code with system support from the Super Admin and reviews it at least annually.
18. Reviewer declaration
I confirm that I have suitable competence and time; have disclosed relevant conflicts; will protect confidential material; will not delegate or use AI without required approval and disclosure; will review independently, respectfully and on evidence; will not seek improper influence or benefit; and accept that my recommendation is advisory and subject to editorial decision.
19. Reference framework
This Code is informed by established publication-ethics principles, including guidance for peer reviewers from the Committee on Publication Ethics and international editorial guidance on confidentiality, conflicts and responsible AI use. It is adapted to ResearchBridge Africa’s student-development, repository and scholarly-review services.
Draft for expert review: publication during the pilot supports transparency but does not replace final academic, legal or data-protection review.