Conflict of Interest & Competing Interests Policy

Purpose, Scope & Commitment

ARCITECH: Journal of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence is committed to impartial evaluation, research integrity, transparency, and accountable editorial decisions. This policy defines how actual, potential, and perceived competing interests are disclosed, assessed, and managed in submissions, peer review, publication, and post-publication matters.

It applies to authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, guest editors, journal managers, publisher representatives, and any other person whose interests could influence a scholarly decision.

Definitions and Types of Competing Interests

A competing interest (also called a conflict of interest) is a relationship, circumstance, obligation, or interest that may influence—or reasonably appear to influence—research design, interpretation, peer review, editorial handling, publication, or correction of the scholarly record.

• Financial interests: grants, sponsorship, employment, paid consultancy, honoraria, equity, patents, licensing income, commercial contracts, or other financial benefits.
• Professional or institutional interests: current or recent collaboration, supervisory relationships, shared grants, institutional appointments, leadership positions, or professional dependencies.
• Personal interests: close personal or family relationships, significant disputes, mentorship, or competing personal obligations.
• Academic or intellectual interests: directly competing research, strongly held positions, academic rivalry, or access to privileged unpublished findings.
• Editorial or organizational interests: editorial roles, publisher relationships, or incentives linked to publication decisions.

Both favorable and unfavorable relationships may be relevant. A conflict can exist even without evidence that judgment was actually affected.

Author Disclosure Responsibilities

The corresponding author must coordinate complete and accurate competing-interest information from every coauthor. Each author remains personally responsible for the completeness of their disclosure. Relevant interests should be disclosed during submission, updated during peer review, and confirmed again before publication when needed.

• Identify relevant financial and nonfinancial interests connected with the work, its methods, datasets, commercial application, interpretation, or dissemination.
• Disclose the identity and role of research funders and sponsors, including any involvement in study design, collection or analysis of data, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions.
• Report institutional, intellectual property, commercial, and personal relationships that a reasonable reader might consider influential.
• State explicitly when there are no competing interests to declare.
• Inform the editorial office promptly when a previously undisclosed or newly arising conflict becomes known.

The editor may request clarification or supporting information where reasonably needed for a proportionate assessment. Sensitive personal information shall be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

Required Competing Interests Statement

Manuscripts should contain a distinct Competing Interests or Conflicts of Interest declaration in the article’s declarations section, including a negative statement when no relevant interests exist. A funding statement alone does not replace a competing-interests declaration.

Examples are illustrative. Authors must replace placeholders with accurate, case-specific information and may not declare an independent process unless it actually occurred.

Funding, Sponsors & Institutional Relationships

Authors must describe funding and sponsor involvement accurately. Editors should assess whether commercial, institutional, or contractual arrangements create concerns about data access, analytic independence, interpretation, or the right to publish unfavorable results.

• A funding source does not automatically create a disqualifying conflict.
• Material sponsor roles and limitations on investigator independence should be transparent.
• The publisher, institutional owner, sponsors, advertisers, and financial supporters must not determine acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.
• Fee arrangements, including Article Processing Charges (APCs), do not influence reviewer selection, peer-review outcomes, or editorial decisions.

Detailed author charges are stated in the ARCITECH Publication Fee policy.

Reviewer Eligibility & Independence

Invited reviewers must evaluate potential conflicts before accepting an assignment and must decline or consult the handling editor if impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Double-blind review does not remove the obligation to disclose conflicts when a reviewer recognizes or suspects an author’s identity.

• Reviewers should ordinarily decline assignments involving authors from the same institution, close collaborators, current or recent mentors/mentees, shared grant partners, family members, or direct financial interests.
• A reviewer must not accept a manuscript for the purpose of gaining access to confidential ideas, data, or methods.
• Reviewers must not contact the authors privately about the manuscript or use unpublished content for personal advantage.
• Potential conflicts discovered after acceptance must be reported promptly; the editor decides whether to replace the reviewer or apply another appropriate safeguard.
• Reviewer recommendations must be based on the manuscript’s scientific merits and supported by objective reasoning.

Further requirements are set out in Peer Review Policy & Editorial Decision.

Editors, Editorial Board Members & Guest Editors

Editors and members of the editorial team must declare relevant interests and refrain from handling manuscripts where their objectivity may be compromised or reasonably perceived to be compromised. This includes manuscripts by close collaborators, family members, supervisors/mentees, direct competitors, or parties to a significant financial or institutional relationship.

• A conflicted editor must not carry out desk evaluation, select or influence reviewers, access privileged deliberations beyond what their non-conflicted duties require, or make the final decision.
• The manuscript must be reassigned to a suitably qualified, conflict-free editor; an independent guest editor may be appointed when needed.
• Editors must not permit personal relationships, affiliation, reputation, sponsor requests, or APC revenue to affect evaluation.
• Relevant delegation and recusal decisions should be documented in OJS or the journal’s restricted editorial records.

When the Editor-in-Chief Is Conflicted

If the Editor-in-Chief is an author, coauthor, recent collaborator, sponsor-linked participant, or otherwise has a substantial competing interest, the Editor-in-Chief must take no part in the manuscript’s editorial assessment or final decision.

A qualified, conflict-free editor or independent guest editor must be designated to oversee the manuscript, select independent reviewers, consider reports, and record the decision. The delegation must be documented, and the conflicted person must not influence the process through administrative privileges or institutional authority.

If an allegation specifically concerns the Editor-in-Chief or the integrity of this delegation, the matter should be referred to an appropriate conflict-free representative of the journal’s publisher or other authorized independent authority, with appropriate confidentiality.

Submissions by Editors, Reviewers & Institutional Affiliates

Manuscripts submitted by current editors, editorial board members, reviewers, journal staff, or affiliates of the publisher are eligible for consideration only under the same scholarly and ethical criteria as other manuscripts.

• A conflict-free handling editor oversees the manuscript and assigns the independent reviewers specified in ARCITECH’s peer-review policy.
• The author/editor must not view confidential review reports through administrative access or intervene in the manuscript’s workflow.
• The handling editor should document relevant conflict disclosures, delegated decision-making, reviewer independence, and the final editorial rationale.
• The journal should monitor and evaluate the share of articles involving editorial board members, reviewers, and journal personnel in its publication record.

This policy does not guarantee publication to any internal or external author.

Publisher, Institutional Owner & Journal Management

The publisher and journal management are responsible for supporting an editorial system where scientific decisions remain independent of organizational priorities, sponsorship, advertising, institutional relationships, and fee income.

• Publisher representatives and journal managers must disclose relevant relationships when taking part in manuscript-related decisions or misconduct procedures.
• Administrative officers handling invoices, journal operations, or publicity must not override scientific decisions.
• Where the concern involves an editor, the publisher should ensure an appropriately independent route for review or escalation.
• Institutional affiliations and management roles should be presented accurately and kept current on the journal website.

The Editorial Team and Contact pages identify journal personnel and official communication channels.

Identification, Assessment & Management Procedure

Disclosure alone is not always sufficient to address a serious conflict. Conversely, minor or manageable relationships do not automatically require manuscript rejection.

Disclosure and Transparency in Published Articles

An accepted article should include the authors’ competing-interests declaration and funding disclosure where applicable. For relevant editorial-affiliation cases, an additional neutral statement may explain that the manuscript was handled independently.

Declarations should describe actual interests accurately, without disclosing unnecessary sensitive personal data. Editorial management details may be summarized publicly when relevant to protect trust in the scholarly record; confidential reviewer identities remain protected under the journal’s double-blind review process.

Any publication metadata, declarations, and correction notices must remain consistent with the full article and the journal’s published policies.

Confidentiality, Data Protection & Recordkeeping

Reports of conflicts, supporting information, reviewer identities, and internal deliberations are treated as confidential editorial information, subject to relevant legal obligations and the journal’s privacy policy. Access should be limited to authorized personnel with a legitimate need to assess or manage the matter.

ARCITECH may maintain restricted records of disclosures, recusals, reviewer changes, decisions, and communications to support ethical accountability and institutional audit. Records should be kept and handled according to applicable retention and personal-data requirements; a particular technical security mechanism or retention period is not claimed by this policy.

Competing Interests Identified After Publication

A conflict discovered after publication must be assessed fairly and in proportion to its relevance and possible effect on the work or editorial process. The journal may seek explanations from authors, editors, reviewers, institutions, or other parties as appropriate.

• If the research remains reliable but a material declaration was omitted, the journal may publish a correction or another appropriate notice to make the disclosure transparent.
• If the concern raises substantive doubt about the reliability of the findings or integrity of the review, additional investigation may be required.
• An expression of concern or retraction is considered only when warranted under the separate post-publication policy and relevant ethical guidance.
• A late disclosure is not by itself proof that research results are invalid or that misconduct occurred.

Related procedures: Corrections & Retractions Policy.

Reporting Concerns, Complaints & Appeals

Authors, reviewers, readers, journal personnel, and third parties may submit a good-faith concern about undisclosed competing interests or improper editorial influence to the journal’s official contact channel. The report should, where practicable, identify the manuscript or published article, describe the relevant relationship, and provide verifiable supporting information.

Concerns involving the recipient editor should be handled by a conflict-free journal or publisher representative. Parties named in an allegation should have a fair opportunity to respond when appropriate. Deliberate retaliation against good-faith reporting is inconsistent with editorial integrity.

For formal appeals or complaints, consult Complaints & Appeals Policy.

Implementation, Consistency & Related Policies

This policy forms part of ARCITECH’s publication-integrity framework. Its provisions are to be applied together with—not in place of—the journal’s peer-review, author-declaration, misconduct, post-publication, and privacy procedures.

• Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
• Peer Review Policy & Editorial Decision
• Author Guidelines & Submission Requirements
• Complaints & Appeals Policy
• Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy
• Article Processing Charges (APC)

ARCITECH may update this policy as publication-ethics guidance and institutional procedures evolve. Changes should be reflected consistently in author instructions, editorial guidance, and manuscript workflows.

Reference Standards & Further Reading

This policy is informed by the principles of transparent and independent scholarly publishing, including:

• COPE — Core Practices (Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests)
• COPE — Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
• COPE, DOAJ, OASPA & WAME — Principles of Transparency and Best Practice (Version 4)
• DOAJ — Guide to Applying

Citing these international resources indicates alignment with ethical guidance; it does not imply formal certification, accreditation, or endorsement by those organizations.