The university bears full ethical responsibility when it allows academic peer review to be stripped of its true meaning, and when actions that contradict the very essence of science are carried out in the name of regulations. Peer review is neither a routine procedure nor a silent authority exercised from behind desks; it is an act of justice that directly affects academic and professional destinies. Any flaw within it constitutes a direct breach at the very core of institutional conscience.

Responsibility lies explicitly with anyone who accepts the task of review without sufficient scholarly competence, without ethical independence, or without a precise understanding of governing regulations. Accepting an assignment without qualification is not a service but a disservice, and insisting on a position without the capacity for fairness is not diligence but a blatant transgression against science. Nothing alters this reality, even if the error is cloaked in formal procedures or official signatures.

Every practice in which decisions are driven by names rather than texts, or by personal considerations rather than scientific standards, is subject to condemnation. Professional rank, personal relationships, or administrative history grant no one the right to override the quality, originality, and methodological rigor of research. Any decision granted without merit, or unjustly withheld, lacks ethical legitimacy—regardless of how procedurally sound it may appear.

Accountability reaches its highest level in cases of leniency toward academic fraud, foremost among them the approval of research not genuinely conducted by its listed authors, or the overlooking of outsourced scholarly labor—whether through paid ghostwriting, purchasing research, or recycling others’ work under different names. These are not isolated violations but a fully realized form of epistemic corruption that rewards money or influence, marginalizes genuine effort, and transforms academic advancement into a prize for manipulation rather than merit.

Equally condemned is any tolerance of plagiarism or academic theft, or any superficial handling of similarity-detection tools. Passing plagiarized or questionable research is not an administrative error; it is a direct betrayal of science, a blow to the university’s credibility, and an implicit message that mediocrity is acceptable when properly packaged.

Responsibility also extends to unjustified administrative procrastination, the withholding of files, and deliberate delays in decision-making. Academic time is part of one’s rightful due, and delaying judgment is an injustice no less severe than issuing an unjust judgment. Transparency in providing reasons for decisions is an obligation, not an option, and abandoning it places one under clear ethical accountability.

A university that fails to hold itself publicly accountable legitimizes falsification, rewards mediocrity, and forfeits society’s trust. The unavoidable question remains: who truly does the work, and who merely signs? Where such questions are not confronted with courage, knowledge is not safeguarded, universities are not respected, and the future cannot be entrusted.

Prof. Dr. Ayed Mohammed Al-Zahrani

Secretary-General of the Swiss Association of Arab Academics and Scientists