The editor is the person in charge of overseeing the manuscript submission process until it is accepted for publication. Our editors are experts in their respective fields and are responsible for the peer review process and the content of the journal. Their role is to handle the peer review of manuscripts, make recommendation on the acceptance or rejection of a paper and attract high-quality submissions. To acquire a high-quality article, editors also make comments, recommendations, and judgments to change, approve, or reject the article, Each Editor of the Editorial Board should maintain the journal standards, peer review, and take the real responsibility for its reputation and whole content and thereby contributing greatly to the prestige of our journal.
The Editor-in-Chief is the journal's leader and is primarily accountable for the journal's scholarly excellence. The Editor-in-Chief is in charge of Scientific choices about the scope of the journal, Inviting eminent scientists to join the editorial board, Recommending special issue ideas, Assisting Guest Editors with special issue preparation, and Overseeing the editorial process for individual submissions (mainly by taking the final decision whether a paper can be published after peer-review and revisions). The Editor-in-Chief ensures that the journal meets the needs of the research community, provides a route for scientific discussion and debate as well as the dissemination of sound primary research, all of the content in the journal is scientifically valid and fits the aims and scope of the journal.
A key role for the Editor-in-Chief is to keep their Editorial Board engaged and contributing to the journal, and regular communication with its members to maintain this interest. This might be achieved by sending regular updates on important developments in the journal, holding virtual meetings with relevant Editorial Board Members to discuss specific issues and/or by holding in-person Editorial Board meetings in the subject area(s) of the journal.
Editorial Board of the journal consists of a group of experts in the field who support the Editor-in-Chief in the running and development of the journal. Members of the Editorial Board will assist the Editor-in-Chief in assessing the manuscripts, editing the same, in peer reviewing and at every stage of publication of the journal. They should ensure that the subject matter of the manuscripts reflects any changes of direction in the field of study to incorporate newly-emerging work, conduct their activities with integrity and objectivity and with the policies of the journal and the publisher, follow the COPE short guide to ethical editing, continually engage the Editorial Board on the progress of the journal, provide strategic input into the journal’s development, carefully review communications and promote the journal to peers and colleagues.
The Editorial Board shall help determine the journal’s field specific editorial policies, assist with ideas for commissioning reviews and commentaries and serve as Guest Editor for special or themed issues for the journal, provide content by writing occasional editorials and other short articles, help with managing the peer review of manuscripts, provide expert advice on manuscripts during research integrity investigations, and represent and promote the journal.
Editorial Board Members and Editors are required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.
In addition, they should exclude themselves from handling manuscripts in cases where there is a competing interest. This may include – but is not limited to – having previously published with one or more of the authors, and sharing the same institution as one or more of the authors.
Where an Editor or Editorial Board Member is on the author list they must declare this in the competing interests section on the submitted manuscript. If they are an author or have any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another Editor or member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume responsibility for overseeing peer review. These submissions are subject to the exact same review process as any other manuscript.
Editorial Board Members are welcome to submit papers to the journal. These submissions are not given any priority over other manuscripts, and Editorial Board Member status has no bearing on editorial consideration.
New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
Editors should flag any case of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship with the editor-in-chief or the publisher.
Special issues are usually edited by a Guest Editor. Guest editors play a vital role in acquiring content and leading the review process for special issue publications. The Guest Editor collaborates with the Editorial Office to create a description and keywords for the web page for the special issue. Frequently, the Guest Editor will also contribute an editorial to the special edition. The Guest Editor normally decides whether papers submitted to his or her special issue will be accepted (depending on the journal's policy; in some situations, they may make a suggestion to the Editor-in-Chief). The papers in a special issue are published online in the journal as soon as they are accepted, and they are aggregated on the special issue homepage. This implies that authors who submit material will see their work as soon as it is accepted, even if other papers in the special issue are still being processed. Guest Editors should avoid having conflicts of interest with authors whose work they are evaluating, such as if they are from the same university or work closely together. Final acceptance decisions for submitted papers will be made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate editorial board member in this situation.
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare but entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Should the Editor decides not to assign reviewers but instead reject the submission, he/she is required to provide comments to be returned to the author.
The Editor shall, based on the research interest (or) subject, assign the peer reviewers the submitted manuscript for the peer review process. Editors should ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests). Editors should ideally choose at least two reviewers to provide a report and ensure that not all of the reviewers chosen are recommended by the authors of the paper unless there is strong justification. Editors should cease to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews. Editors should use a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases).
Editors should stop using reviewers who are habitually rude, low-quality, or late with their evaluations.
Editors should look for possible new reviewers from a variety of sources (not just personal contacts) (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases).
Editors shall send the acknowledgement to the respective author after he/she receives the article. The articles can be rejected if the article does not meet the policies of submission
Editors should deal with any papers assigned to them in a timely fashion so as to aim for a decision within 3 months.
Editors should provide written feedback to authors as regards any decision made even if that decision apparently follows obviously from reviewers’ comments, in which case one or two sentences summarizing the reviewers’ comments is appropriate.
Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described peer review process.
Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
Editors should monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard.
Editors should encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation), the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
Editor will take the final decision for acceptance/rejection of the article based on the comments/suggestions, and shall be conveyed to the author by the editor. If needed/ recommended, submission will undergo a second round of review, where an editor will ask the author to resubmit for the second revision. The author shall receive the decision along with the comments/recommendations from reviewers. If the article is not suitable for publication, it will be rejected. The editor shall inform the same to the author(s) along with the comments by reviewer.
Editors are responsible for making manuscript decisions based upon reviewer reports and their own reading of the manuscript. In the majority of cases, at least two reports will be received which are broadly in agreement, making it possible to assess reviewer comments easily and reach a straightforward decision.
Editors’ recommendation to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the peer reviews and their own view on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
Editors can recommend to immediately reject a paper if the material does not meet the standard of the journal.
Editors should not reverse a decision to accept a submission unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
Referees advise the Editor, who is responsible for making the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers, and the Editor's own assessment of the manuscript. The Editor must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the Editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear. The Editor should be sure to never disclose the names of reviewers to authors.
An accept decision means that an Editor is accepting the submission "as is" with no further changes required by the reviewers. In this case, the Editor will forward the decision to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will notify the author the decision with copying the Editor, and guide the author in the final submission and further production. The submission will not be seen again by the Editor or by the reviewers.
A major revision means that the submission should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews. If a major revision is recommended, the Editor will directly inform the author to make and return the revision to him/her for a second round of reviews. The decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may usually include verbatim comments by the referees. Major revision must be accompanied by a letter from the author indicating the main modifications and how the concerns stated by the reviewers have been addressed in the resubmission. Usually the original reviewers are used for the revised manuscript, but that is at the discretion of the Editor. The Editor will provide the reviewers with their previous reviews and the author’s letter for reference. Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions. Reviewers are given 3 weeks to review the major revision.
Request for a revision is made if the editor feels that the manuscript is likely to be acceptable for publication after some changes and modifications. The authors will be notified of the comments of the reviewers and Editor and asked to revise accordingly.
The authors will be allowed to make only two rounds of revision to avoid a lengthy peer-review process, which can become frustrating for authors and reviewers alike. If further small revisions need to be made or a manuscript needs copy-editing, a third revision period will be offered. If a manuscript still needs extensive reworking it would entitle rejection with an invitation to resubmit once the revisions have been made. If further revisions would not make the manuscript acceptable, it should be rejected without an offer to resubmit. The original file will be closed and the authors can resubmit a new manuscript in the future. This can encourage more extensive revision and also avoids keeping files open for long periods of time, or indefinitely, should the authors be unable to complete the necessary revisions.
The minor revision should not go back to the reviewers. The author is informed by the Editor directly, and will send the revision to the original Editor together with a short summary about the modifications authors have made and author's response to reviewer's comments. The Editor will evaluate the revision and make a final Accept/Reject decision. Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision.
The manuscript is not suitable for publication if there are concerns regarding the soundness of the study that cannot be addressed or revisions would amount to an entirely new study, the manuscript should be rejected without an invitation to resubmit or if reviewers request extensive revisions to be made before a manuscript is accepted and these would take longer than three months to complete, then the manuscript can be rejected with the opportunity to resubmit. The author is notified directly by the Editor, copying the Editor-in-Chief if the manuscript is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor may otherwise choose to forward the decision to the Editor-in-Chief who will contact the author with this final decision. In any case, comments should be provided by the Editor, and returned to the author. When rejecting a manuscript, whether before or after peer review, we provide authors with reasons for rejection and feedback that can be used to improve their work in the future.