A conflict of interest, also known as a competing interest, arises when financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships may improperly influence, or appear to influence, an individual's objectivity in conducting, evaluating, reviewing, or publishing scholarly work.

In legal scholarship, competing interests may relate to professional legal practice, institutional affiliations, advisory or consultancy roles, litigation, public policy advocacy, legal representation, academic relationships, or other circumstances relevant to the subject of a manuscript.

Competing interests may take several forms, including but not limited to the following:

All authors are expected to disclose relevant competing interests at the time of manuscript submission. Disclosures should be accurate, sufficiently detailed, and relevant to the submitted work.

• Declare relevant financial and non-financial competing interests.
• Disclose funding sources and explain the role of funders in research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and publication decisions, where applicable.
• Identify relevant employment, consultancy, legal practice, intellectual property, or commercial relationships.
• Disclose relevant professional or institutional relationships that may reasonably be perceived to affect the manuscript.
• Ensure that all co-authors are informed of relevant disclosures.
• Inform the editorial office if a relevant competing interest becomes apparent during peer review or after publication.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, independently, and confidentially. They should inform the editor of any circumstance that may compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

• Declare financial, personal, institutional, academic, or professional relationships that could affect impartiality.
• Decline a review invitation when a competing interest prevents a fair and independent assessment.
• Inform the editor promptly if a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting a review invitation.
• Avoid reviewing manuscripts where close collaboration, direct competition, or other significant relationships could affect objectivity.
• Do not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, financial, or academic advantage.

Editors must ensure that editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, originality, quality of legal reasoning, research rigor, and compliance with publication ethics, rather than personal or competing interests.

• Disclose competing interests that could affect editorial judgment.
• Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts when an actual or significant perceived conflict exists.
• Arrange for an independent editor to manage the manuscript when necessary.
• Select reviewers fairly and protect the independence and confidentiality of peer review.
• Avoid preferential treatment based on personal relationships, institutional affiliation, professional status, or other irrelevant considerations.
• Protect confidential information and document relevant editorial safeguards where appropriate.

UIR Law Review manages competing interests through transparent disclosure, editorial assessment, and appropriate safeguards to protect the independence of the publication process.

Relevant competing interests should be disclosed in the manuscript or accompanying submission declarations, as required by the journal. Where appropriate, UIR Law Review may publish a competing-interest statement alongside the article.

Statements must accurately reflect the information provided by the authors and should not obscure relevant financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships.

Authors must replace bracketed information with accurate details. The examples are illustrative and should be adapted to the circumstances of each manuscript. Declarations must not be used to conceal relevant interests or funding relationships.

If a relevant competing interest is omitted, inaccurately reported, or discovered after submission or publication, UIR Law Review may request clarification, supporting documentation, or a corrected declaration from the relevant parties.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may require a corrected disclosure, reassign editorial responsibilities, arrange an additional independent assessment, publish a correction, or take other appropriate action. Serious cases involving deliberate misrepresentation may be handled under the journal's research misconduct policy.

This policy should be read together with UIR Law Review's other editorial, peer-review, authorship, and research integrity policies. The journal encourages alignment with recognized publication ethics principles, including guidance provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).