(i) A conflict of interest has to be declared as early as it is detected

(ii) An informal review of the article, asking your colleague if your comments may help, can be of interest to this person: you help them build a stronger article. However in this case you side with them, and decouple from the editor. That's what I would do. Also only help someone who wants to be helped: humans are strange so be careful... There are many people focusing on "publich or perish" whatever it may cost them in their ecosystem...

Rajlakshmi Kanjilal

(i) A conflict of interest has to be declared as early as it is detected

(ii) An informal review of the article, asking your colleague if your comments may help, can be of interest to this person: you help them build a stronger article. However in this case you side with them, and decouple from the editor. That's what I would do. Also only help someone who wants to be helped: humans are strange so be careful... There are many people focusing on "publich or perish" whatever it may cost them in their ecosystem...

Definitely accept the review request and do a fair review.

Renaud Di Francesco , thank you so much for enriching this discussion. That is truly appreciated. You have a valid point of view. Best Regards,

Faraed Salman , thank you so much for sharing your opinion. Best regards,

Thank you for sharing this Question

Dear Sanaa N Al- Haj Ali ,

According to the COPE Ethical Guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf and I quote “Peer reviewers should:” “• follow journals’ policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the journal if: they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there); they are or have been recent (e.g. within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders; they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors.”

So either the journal policy tells you what to do, if not inform/ask journal. Personally I would find it 'sloppy' of the journal in the first place and if it nevertheless would happen I would say no.

Best regards.

Dear Sanaa N Al- Haj Ali,

I agree to Rob Keller's reply. I just want to add that if you follow the steps mentioned and are still in doubt take the safest option and decline reviewing the manuscript.

On another note, some 15 years ago, I co-authored a paper. A few days after submission to a journal, I get a review request by the Editor of that same journal to review our own submission!! So, we should keep in mind that editorial teams can be sloppy or simply overwhelmed at times and we should help them by doing the right thing.

All the best.

I agree with the answers provided by Renaud, Rob, and Vasilis. However, I wouldn't face this particular problem as long as a journal is double blind peer review.

If the author(s) are revealed to the reviewers, I too think it is better to inform the journal about potential conflicts. However, what if you can still do an unbiased review for a known author? In my view, there could be cases a reviewer can still do a fair review even if the authors are known. So, I would (i) inform this to the journal in the first place (ii) inform my ability to provide an unbiased review even if the authors are known. Next, the journal can decide whether it is better or not to proceed.

Rob Keller , Vasilis J Promponas , and Manjula Wijewickrema thank you so much for your advice. Best regards,

blind reviewing is now practiced. you may not know the author. if you have to give a review and you are an expert in this area, then you must objectively evaluate it. if you are not an expert in this field, then it is better to refuse, so as not to give negative feedback

Iryna Skrypchenko , thank you so much for the wonderful advice. Best regards,