MANUSCRIPT THEFT AND EDITORIAL GOVERNANCE IN DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

Abstract

The double-blind peer review process is an important mechanism for validating scientific knowledge; however, it presents structural vulnerabilities that enable practices of epistemic usurpation. In this context, manuscript theft refers to the complete appropriation of an unpublished manuscript submitted for peer review and its subsequent publication under another author's name. This practice breaches the fiduciary pact underlying the editorial process, although it remains underreported and lacks sufficiently operational preventive mechanisms. Therefore, this article aims to propose improvements in editorial governance to prevent manuscript theft in the double-blind peer review process. The study is theoretical in nature, adopting a qualitative approach and a bibliographic-documentary methodology, based on a narrative review of national and international literature on scientific integrity, and data protection. The findings reveal three cumulative structural deficits of the double-blind review model: the inaccessibility of confidential reviews, the absence of formal protocols for investigating reviewer misconduct, and the lack of interinstitutional traceability mechanisms. In response, a tripartite governance architecture is proposed, consisting of a structural layer (Transparent Peer Review), a legal-forensic layer (General Data Protection Law), and an instrumental layer (checklists, integrity forms, and granular consent mechanisms). It is concluded that the effective prevention of manuscript theft requires the integration of these three layers so that the opacity of the double-blind peer review process can be transformed into auditable traceability without suppressing the anonymity valued by the scientific community.