Editors Guidelines
Editors play a central role in maintaining scientific quality at JCSR. These guidelines outline expectations for decision making, reviewer selection, and communication with authors.
Supporting fair and rigorous decisions
Editors assess submissions for scope fit, originality, and methodological rigor before inviting peer review. They balance reviewer recommendations with their own assessment to reach fair, well supported decisions.
Quality
Methods and analysis are robust
Scope
Aligned with journal aims
Ethics
Approvals and consent documented
Data
Availability and transparency
Clarity
Clear writing and structure
Impact
Contribution to scientific progress
Timelines: Aim to secure reviewer reports promptly and deliver decisions within the standard review window. Communicate delays to the editorial office when needed.
Conflicts of Interest: Editors must disclose conflicts and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where impartiality could be compromised.
Communication: Provide clear decision letters that summarize key issues and guide authors toward improvements that strengthen scientific quality.
Apply consistent editorial judgments
Editors should apply consistent decision categories and provide clear rationale to authors.
- Accept: Manuscript meets standards with no substantive changes.
- Minor Revision: Limited updates required for clarity or completeness.
- Major Revision: Substantial changes or additional analysis required.
- Reject: Manuscript does not meet scope or quality standards.
Align reviewer feedback with policy
Select reviewers with appropriate expertise and manage conflicts of interest carefully. Encourage reviewers to provide structured feedback that aligns with journal evaluation criteria.
Address integrity concerns
Editors should flag potential ethics concerns, such as incomplete consent, data anomalies, or plagiarism. When concerns arise, coordinate with the editorial office to determine appropriate next steps.
Communicate with clarity
Decision letters should be concise, professional, and aligned with reviewer feedback. Clearly separate mandatory revisions from optional suggestions to help authors prioritize changes.
Ensure fair outcomes
Apply criteria consistently across submissions to maintain fairness. Document the rationale behind decisions to support transparency and accountability.
Broaden perspectives
Seek reviewer diversity in geography, methodology, and perspective to reduce bias and improve evaluation quality.
Record decision rationale
Document key decision points in the editorial system so outcomes remain transparent for audits and reporting.
