Review integrity is a principle in theory, but a set of actions in practice. On the topic of "how to avoid conflicts of interest after receiving a review invitation," here are the five most common questions in a Q&A format.
Q1: What exactly are we avoiding?
We are avoiding "conflicts of interest that affect review judgment." The most typical situations are: the reviewee has a publicly known collaborative relationship with you or a core member of your team—you have co-authored papers, jointly undertaken projects, or have a publicly verifiable training relationship. Such relationships may go unnoticed if you do not check, but once found, they must be handled.
Q2: How should we check? Is relying on memory reliable?
Not reliable. Academic networks are complex, and relying on memory to list "people you might know" carries a high risk of omissions. A reliable approach is to verify using public data: with the reviewee at the center, check whether there is a public relationship between them and core members of your team. MuchSci's relationship mapping provides four types of first-level relationships—co-authorship, team/project collaboration, training relationships, and academic activity peers—and each comes with an evidence chain.
Q3: What do the results look like?
It is not simply "related/not related," but four tiers:verified direct collaboration, public relationship exists but collaboration is not proven, no direct evidence found, and unable to determine. There is no gray area between the levels—this is exactly what makes it more reliable than "I don't think we've collaborated before."
Q4: If a relationship is found, what then?
Proactively explain the situation to the review organizer and request recusal. Note the order: explain first, then recuse, and submit the verification basis (which relationship, what evidence) together. This protects both review integrity and the reviewer—if a dispute arises, your handling is documented.
Q5: How long does the whole process take?
Four steps: receive the invitation → check public relationships → four-tier conclusion → proactively recuse if necessary. Usually about the time of a meal. Compared with being questioned or even handled afterward, this time is well spent.