for Editors

Guide for Editors

  1. Purpose and Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that the editorial and peer-review processes are conducted fairly, transparently, consistently, and in accordance with accepted standards of scholarly publishing and publication ethics. Editorial decisions should be based on scientific quality, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope, without discrimination based on gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or other non-scientific considerations.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript should undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it:

  • Falls within the scope of the journal.
  • Meets the journal’s submission requirements.
  • Has an acceptable basic scientific and structural quality.
  • Meets relevant ethical requirements.
  • Shows no clear indications of unacceptable similarity or research-integrity concerns.

Editors may reject a manuscript without peer review when it is outside the journal’s scope or does not meet the minimum scientific or editorial requirements.

  1. Originality, Similarity, and Research Integrity

Editors should assess the originality and research integrity of submitted manuscripts. Similarity-detection tools may be used as supporting tools; however, a similarity percentage alone should not be considered evidence of plagiarism.

Concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, or serious authorship issues should be handled according to the journal’s publication-ethics procedures.

  1. Reviewer Selection and Peer-Review Management

Reviewers should be selected according to their relevant subject expertise, independence, and ability to provide an objective assessment. Potential conflicts of interest should be avoided whenever possible.

The confidentiality of the peer-review process must be maintained. Reviewers should be encouraged to provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, and timely reports.

  1. Evaluation of Reviewer Reports

Editors should assess the substance and scientific justification of reviewer reports rather than relying solely on the reviewers’ recommendations.

When reviewer reports substantially disagree, the editor may seek clarification or invite an additional independent reviewer before making a final decision.

  1. Editorial Decisions and Manuscript Revision

Editorial decisions may include:

  • Accept.
  • Minor Revision.
  • Major Revision.
  • Reject.

Decisions should be based on the scientific assessment of the manuscript, reviewer reports, journal scope, and editorial standards, while allowing the editor to exercise independent editorial judgment.

When revisions are requested, editors should assess the authors’ responses to the reviewers’ comments and may send the revised manuscript for further review when necessary.

  1. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must maintain the confidentiality of information relating to submitted manuscripts, reviewers, authors, and editorial decisions.

Editors and reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and take appropriate measures to manage it, including reassignment of the manuscript when necessary.

  1. Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct

Editors should uphold the principles of research integrity and publication ethics, including relevant requirements concerning research involving human participants or animals and informed consent, where applicable.

Credible concerns or allegations of research misconduct should be handled objectively and confidentially according to established procedures. Where appropriate, corrective actions may include a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction.

  1. Use of Artificial Intelligence

The use of artificial intelligence tools in editorial work must comply with the journal’s policies and confidentiality requirements.

Editors must not upload confidential manuscripts or information concerning authors or reviewers to unauthorized external AI tools. AI tools must not replace the editor’s scientific judgment or editorial responsibility.

  1. Appeals, Complaints, and Post-Publication Issues

The journal should provide a clear mechanism for handling appeals and complaints concerning editorial decisions or the peer-review process.

Appeals should be considered objectively and on the basis of substantive scientific or procedural grounds. Post-publication errors or research-integrity concerns should be addressed through appropriate actions, such as corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, or retractions.

  1. Editorial Independence and Timeliness

Editorial decisions should remain independent of commercial, personal, institutional, academic-status, or citation-related pressures.

Editors should manage manuscripts within a reasonable timeframe and inform authors when significant delays occur in the editorial or peer-review process.

 

  1. Final Editorial Checklist

Before making a final decision, the editor should verify that:

  • The manuscript is within the journal’s scope.
  • Originality and research integrity have been considered.
  • Relevant ethical requirements have been addressed.
  • Appropriate and independent reviewers have been selected.
  • The peer-review reports are sufficiently informative.
  • Reviewer comments have been adequately addressed in revised manuscripts.
  • No relevant conflict of interest has been identified.
  • The editorial decision is clearly justified.
  • Confidentiality has been maintained.
  • A clear and professional decision letter has been provided to the authors.