MODULE 01
Peer-review operations
Establish submission checks, reviewer invitations, reminders, decision recording and author communications that give the editorial team a reliable view of each manuscript.
← Back to publishing standards
Publishing standard
Research integrity
Consistent processes for peer review, conflicts of interest and concerns.
Why it matters
A practical foundation for credible publishing.
Research integrity depends on more than a policy document. It requires dependable workflows, clear ownership and well-informed editorial teams who can respond consistently when questions or concerns arise.
The pressures on editorial teams are practical as well as ethical: incomplete submissions, competing interests, reviewer availability, suspected misconduct and post-publication questions all require timely, documented responses. A journal’s integrity processes need to be proportionate, transparent and workable in day-to-day operations.
Core areas
The operating details that make the difference.
01
Peer-review processes that are clear for editors, authors and reviewers
02
Conflict-of-interest declarations and transparent handling
03
A defined route for concerns, investigations and follow-up
Service modules
Detailed support, from design through delivery.
Harrowell combines strategic structure with the practical work that keeps a journal moving. The modules below can be delivered as a focused project or as part of an ongoing service.
MODULE 02
Declarations & disclosures
Build consistent collection and review of competing interests, funding information and other declarations into the author and editorial workflow.
MODULE 03
Concern management
Define the route for raising, documenting and escalating integrity concerns, including which cases require editorial, institutional or specialist input.
MODULE 04
Operational assurance
Use reporting and regular review to identify patterns such as stalled manuscripts, incomplete checks or repeated sources of uncertainty.
How Harrowell supports it
Support designed for the way journals actually work.
- 1
Configure editorial-office workflows and guidance
- 2
Support peer-review administration and reviewer communication
- 3
Maintain practical checklists for integrity-related decisions
- 4
Provide reporting that helps identify recurring operational issues
What good looks like
The outcomes a stronger operating model should create.
- Review processes are easier to follow and audit
- Editors can respond consistently to common concerns
- Authors receive clearer communication
- Integrity issues are documented and escalated appropriately
Questions to work through
A practical starting point for your team.
- 1
What checks happen before a paper enters review?
- 2
How are reviewer, author and editor conflicts handled?
- 3
Who owns the next step when an integrity concern is raised?
Explore the service model