Editor Guidelines

Editors are responsible for managing the peer review process for manuscripts, providing suggestions on whether to accept or reject a paper, and encouraging the submission of top-notch articles. The following guidelines for editors are derived from the COPE code of conduct and the best practice guidelines for journal editors [CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL EDITORS].

Choosing reviewers

  • Editors have the responsibility to carefully select suitable reviewers for submissions. These reviewers should possess the ability to evaluate the work accurately and must not have any conflicting interests that might disqualify them.
  • A minimum of three reviewers should be selected by editors to provide their expert opinion.
  • If reviewers consistently submit impolite, low-quality, or delayed reviews, editors should discontinue their use.
  • To identify potential new reviewers, editors should not solely rely on personal contacts but also explore a diverse range of sources such as bibliographic databases.

Review process

  • Editors must ensure timely handling of all assigned manuscripts in order to achieve an initial decision within a period of 3 months.
  • Editors should make every effort to handle all papers assigned to them, regardless of the subject area. The return of a paper to a Section Editor for reassignment should only occur in exceptional cases. Section Editors aim to allocate papers appropriately, while also ensuring a fair distribution of work across the Editorial Board. Occasionally, it is unavoidable to assign a paper to an editor whose expertise lies outside its scope.
  • Even if a decision clearly aligns with the reviewers' comments, editors should still provide written feedback to authors. In such cases, a concise summary of the reviewers' comments in one or two sentences would suffice.
  • Editors must be prepared to provide a satisfactory explanation for any significant divergence from the prescribed peer review procedure.
  • Prior to accepting a review, editors should request that reviewers disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Editors must vigilantly assess the performance of peer reviewers and take appropriate measures to guarantee a high level of quality.
  • Editors should motivate reviewers to remark on ethical concerns and potential instances of research and publication misconduct that may be evident in submissions (such as unethical research methodology, improper manipulation and presentation of data).
  • Reviewers should assess the originality of submissions and remain attentive to instances of redundant publication and plagiarism.

Decisions

  • Editors' recommendations for accepting or rejecting a paper for publication should be based on both the peer reviews and their own evaluation regarding the paper's importance, originality, and clarity, as well as the study's validity and its relevance to the journal's scope.
  • In cases where a submitted paper fails to meet the standard of the journal, editors are encouraged to recommend immediate rejection.
  • Editors should exercise caution when considering reversing a decision to accept a submission, as it should only occur in the presence of significant issues identified within the submission.
  • Regarding the decisions made by previous editors, new editors should refrain from reversing publication decisions unless they discover serious problems associated with the submission.
  • Whenever editors encounter suspected misconduct or disputes pertaining to authorship, it is their responsibility to inform the editor-in-chief or the publisher and mark such cases accordingly.