Editor guidelines

Editorial independence and responsibility

Assess manuscripts on scope, contribution, validity, reporting and integrity. Payments, sponsorship, institutional prestige and personal relationships must not influence acceptance. Do not promise favourable decisions, citations or fixed review times.

Before accepting an assignment

Check that the manuscript falls within your expertise and that you have enough time to assess it responsibly. Declare relevant personal, financial, institutional or recent collaborative relationships. Decline or request independent handling when a conflict could impair impartiality.

Assignment acceptance checklist

1. Identify whether you can assess the subject matter and the main methods. If a specialist method is outside your expertise, arrange appropriate specialist review rather than assuming it is sound.
2. Check relationships with every author and relevant institution. Disclose recent collaboration, close personal relationships, direct competition, financial interests and supervisory relationships.
3. Confirm that you can handle the assignment without compromising confidentiality or agreed editorial duties.
4. Decline or request reassignment where the conflict or expertise gap cannot be managed.

Do not accept an assignment merely to obtain access to unpublished results. An editor’s own submission, or one involving a close colleague, must be handled independently with the conflict documented.

Initial assessment

Review article type, journal scope, completeness, author declarations, ethics and reporting. Identify substantive concerns about originality, duplication, fabricated material or image manipulation. Refer integrity questions for documented assessment; do not treat a similarity score alone as proof of misconduct.

Screening worksheet

A desk rejection should identify a substantive reason. A missing file or correctable formatting problem may justify a return for completion rather than a judgement on scientific merit. Where a concern suggests misconduct, use the integrity procedure rather than making an unsupported accusation in a routine decision.

Selecting independent reviewers

Research papers normally need at least two qualified external reviewers. Verify expertise and identity, avoid material conflicts and consider a range of relevant methodological and subject perspectives. Author suggestions are optional advice; editors independently choose reviewers.

Reviewer selection procedure

1. Identify the subject and methodological expertise needed for the manuscript.
2. Check potential reviewers’ relevant research or professional record and verify their identity through credible institutional or scholarly information.
3. Assess conflicts, including authorship relationships, supervision, financial interests and close institutional ties.
4. Invite reviewers through the authorised editorial channel with the article type, scope of assessment, confidentiality requirements and an agreed due date.
5. Record invitations, responses, conflicts and any replacement decisions.

Do not rely exclusively on contacts suggested by the authors. Watch for unverifiable identities or contact information that does not fit the reviewer’s claimed affiliation. A personal email is not by itself proof of misconduct, but identity still requires appropriate verification.

Choose additional methodological or statistical review where needed. Diversity of expertise matters; selecting several reviewers with the same narrow perspective can leave major parts of a study unassessed.

Independent review

Ask reviewers to evaluate the question, evidence, methods or interpretive approach, reporting, originality and conclusions. Reports should distinguish essential corrections from optional improvements. Editors assess the quality of each report rather than simply counting recommendations.

Assessing the quality of a report

A usable report identifies the manuscript’s contribution, explains major strengths and weaknesses, supports criticisms and distinguishes issues that affect validity from optional improvements. A report consisting only of “accept” or “reject” is not an adequate assessment.

Check whether the reviewer addressed the design, evidence and conclusions, disclosed conflicts and avoided personal remarks. Remove or seek revision of abusive language. Question requests for irrelevant citations or work that would transform the manuscript into an unrelated study.

Managing disagreement

When reviewers disagree, determine whether the disagreement concerns evidence, methods, interpretation or disciplinary preference. Seek clarification or specialist advice on a specific unresolved question. Do not use a third review simply to obtain a desired vote.

The editor may disagree with a reviewer, but the decision record should explain why the criticism does or does not affect the manuscript’s suitability.

Author response and revision

Send a reasoned decision with actionable comments. Ask authors for point-by-point responses and clean and marked manuscripts. Re-review material changes where needed. Keep communication documented; any discussion must remain professional and focus on the scholarship.

Writing a revision decision

Identify the issues that must be resolved for further consideration, explain the expected response and distinguish mandatory revisions from recommendations. State an agreed deadline in the decision correspondence rather than implying a universal turnaround time. A request for revision is not a promise of acceptance.

For the revised submission, compare the clean manuscript, marked version and response letter. Verify that the changes actually address the concerns and have not introduced inconsistencies between the abstract, analysis, figures and conclusions.

Return substantial methodological changes or disputed scientific issues for further expert assessment where necessary. Minor wording or production changes may be assessed editorially when no new specialist judgement is required.

Making an editorial decision

Choose rejection, revision or acceptance on the evidence and unresolved concerns. Resolve major methodological or ethical issues before acceptance. Explain the rationale and limits of any requested work. Do not demand unrelated experiments or citations merely to benefit an editor, reviewer or journal.

Decision categories

Do not issue acceptance merely because a fee has been paid, a deadline is approaching or a reviewer failed to respond. Do not change the outcome at the request of commercial staff or a sponsor. If a material concern emerges after acceptance but before publication, pause production and investigate it.

Confidentiality, data and AI

Protect unpublished material, reviewer identities and personal data. Do not use manuscript information for your own advantage. Do not upload confidential manuscripts to external AI systems without an authorised confidentiality arrangement. Editors remain accountable for decisions and must verify tool-generated suggestions.

Practical confidentiality rules

• Share manuscripts only with people authorised to participate in their assessment.
• Do not forward files to students or colleagues for an informal second opinion without editorial permission and appropriate disclosure.
• Do not reuse unpublished ideas, figures, data or code for personal benefit.
• Keep reviewer identities confidential unless an explicit policy and consent permit disclosure.
• Use approved storage and communication channels; do not retain unnecessary copies on shared devices.
• Do not paste confidential material into public generative-AI services.

Assistance with language or administration does not transfer responsibility for the scientific decision. Editors must be able to explain their reasoning and the evidence used.

Research integrity concerns

Document specific concerns and seek clarification without making unsupported accusations. Give authors a fair opportunity to respond. Preserve relevant records, restrict unnecessary disclosure and refer serious concerns to an independent integrity lead or institution as appropriate. An accepted manuscript may still require investigation before publication.

Handling an allegation

1. Record the specific concern, the material involved and the source of the allegation.
2. Assess whether immediate action is needed to protect participants, confidential data or the publication record.
3. Seek an appropriate independent integrity assessment and manage conflicts among those investigating.
4. Ask authors for relevant explanations or source material through a documented process.
5. Evaluate the response fairly and preserve the evidence and decision rationale.
6. Consider institutional referral where the issue is beyond the journal’s ability or authority to investigate.

Do not reveal the identity of a complainant unnecessarily, promise an outcome before assessment or use threats to obtain a response. A similarity match, unusual result or image concern requires contextual evaluation rather than an automatic misconduct finding.

Appeals, corrections and retractions

An editor independent of the original decision should assess an appeal. Post-publication errors require proportionate action, including a correction, expression of concern or retraction where warranted. Notices should be linked, dated and explain the reason while preserving the scholarly record.

Independent appeal assessment

An appeal should identify a factual error, material misunderstanding, conflict of interest or procedural concern and supply relevant evidence. Disagreement with the outcome alone does not establish that the process was defective. Assign the appeal to someone not responsible for the disputed decision and record the outcome and reasons.

Post-publication actions

A correction addresses an error where the article’s principal findings remain reliable. An expression of concern may be appropriate while a serious unresolved issue is being assessed. Retraction may be necessary where findings are unreliable, publication is seriously unethical or other grounds justify withdrawal of the work’s standing in the scholarly record. The action should reflect the evidence, not serve as punishment.

Link and date notices, identify the affected article and explain the reason clearly. Preserve the article with an appropriate status indication unless a compelling legal or ethical reason requires removal.

Guidance for reviewers

Accept only within your expertise and disclose conflicts promptly. Assess the work fairly; support criticisms with specific explanations and sources. Separate major issues from minor suggestions. Do not contact authors privately about the review, delegate without permission, request coercive citations or retain confidential files unnecessarily.

Reviewer assessment questions

1. What is the main question or argument, and what does the manuscript contribute?
2. Does the design or interpretive approach address that question?
3. Are sampling, sources, measurements, analysis and assumptions sufficiently described and justified?
4. Are the results or arguments supported by the evidence presented?
5. Are uncertainty, alternative explanations and limitations handled appropriately?
6. Are ethics, permissions, conflicts and data availability addressed?
7. Are the figures, tables and references accurate and relevant?
8. Which changes are essential to validity, and which are optional improvements?

Review-report structure

Begin with a short neutral summary of the contribution. List major comments in a numbered sequence, then minor comments. For each major issue, explain the problem, why it matters and what clarification or change could address it. Cite the relevant page, line, figure or table where possible.

Confidential comments to the editor should not hide criticisms that authors need to answer. Reserve confidential notes for matters such as a conflict or sensitive integrity concern requiring editorial handling. The recommendation should be consistent with the substantive report.

Final checks and editorial records

Before publication, confirm that reviewer concerns, ethics questions, declarations and author approvals are resolved. Keep an auditable record of assignments, reports, revisions and decision reasons. Payment confirmation is a separate administrative process and cannot create editorial acceptance.

Final editorial sign-off

• The article fits the journal and accepted type.
• All required reviews are complete and their substantive concerns are resolved or explicitly assessed.
• The response letter and revised manuscript agree.
• Ethics, authorship, funding, interests, rights and data statements are complete.
• No unresolved concern requires a production hold.
• The acceptance rationale and author-approved version are recorded.

Keep payment status outside the acceptance decision. Operational systems must preserve role-appropriate access and an audit trail; the public website does not itself provide the manuscript-management record.