What is the primary reason for reviewers with a conflict of interest to withdraw from the review process?

Withdrawing from the review process due to a conflict of interest primarily serves to eliminate any potential bias in the review. Reviewers are expected to provide impartial assessments of research work, and when they have a conflict of interest—such as a personal or financial relationship with the authors—their judgment could be influenced, intentionally or unintentionally. This potential bias can compromise the integrity of the review process, leading to unfair advantages or disadvantages for certain submissions.

By removing themselves from the review, these individuals help to ensure that the evaluation remains objective and fair. This is essential for maintaining trust in the academic and research community, as it upholds the standards of impartiality and rigor that are crucial for credible peer review. Maintaining an unbiased review process is fundamental to promoting valid and reliable findings in research.

Other reasons listed, such as maintaining confidentiality or compliance with legal regulations, may also be important in context, but they do not directly address the need to prevent bias in the review outcome. Comprehensive evaluations can result from many factors, not solely from the absence of reviewers with conflicts of interest.