Editor Guidelines

Editor is a person who is in charge of and determines the final content of a manuscript in their respective journal. Our editors are experts in their respective fields and are responsible for the peer review process and the content of the journal. Editor’s role is to handle the peer review of manuscripts, make any recommendations/suggestions on the acceptance or rejection of a paper and attract high-quality submissions.

Responsibilities of an Editor:

1. Editors are accountable and should take up responsibility for everything they publish.
2. Editors should give fair and unbiased decisions.
3. Editors should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and honest reporting.
4. Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed.
5. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.
6. Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals.
7. Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them.
8. Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest.
9. Ensure the quality of the published material, through peer-review, personal comments, and editing.

Role as a Review Editor:

Editor’s primary role as Review Editor is to referee the peer-reviews of submitted manuscripts. Besides refereeing manuscripts, as an active member of any of the SciDoc Journals Editorial Board (with respect to their expertise in that particular field), you are recommended to contribute to the success by:

1. Submitting your articles on a regular basis.
2. Organizing a Research Topic.

Editor’s responsibilities involved during the review process of a manuscript:

a.  Editor’s role in choosing appropriate reviewers:

1. Editors should ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions.
2. Editors should ideally choose at least three reviewers to provide a report.
3. Editors should use a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts, author suggestions, bibliographic databases) to identify potential new reviewers.

b.  Editor’s role in review process:

1. Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described peer review process.
2. Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
3. Editors should monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure that the process is of high standard.

c.  Editor’s final decisions:

1. Editors’ recommendation to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the peer reviews and their own view on the importance, originality and clarity of the paper, the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
2. Editors can recommend to immediately reject a paper if the material does not meet the standards of the respective journal they are dealing with.
3. Editors should not reverse a decision to accept a submission unless serious problems are identified with the submission.