Editor Guidelines
Standards and responsibilities for JDRR associate editors and editorial board members
Core Responsibilities
Associate editors are responsible for shepherding assigned manuscripts through the peer-review process. This includes evaluating submissions for scope and quality, identifying qualified reviewers, synthesizing reviewer feedback, and making informed recommendations to the editor-in-chief. Editors should handle manuscripts in their areas of expertise and promptly decline assignments outside their competence.
- Evaluate manuscript scope and preliminary quality within 48 hours of assignment
- Identify and invite 3-5 potential reviewers with relevant expertise
- Monitor review progress and send reminders as needed
- Synthesize reviewer feedback into coherent editorial recommendations
- Communicate decisions clearly and constructively to authors
Ethical Standards
Editors must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content and reviewer identities. Any potential conflict of interest should result in recusal from handling that submission. Editors should not use unpublished information from submissions for personal advantage. All editorial decisions must be based solely on scientific merit without regard to author characteristics or institutional affiliations.
Decision Making
Editorial recommendations should be fair, constructive, and evidence-based. When reviewers disagree, editors should exercise informed judgment and may seek additional opinions if needed. Decision letters should clearly explain the rationale for the recommendation and provide actionable guidance for authors seeking revision. Editors are expected to respond to author appeals and queries in a timely and professional manner.
Reviewer Selection
Editors should identify reviewers based on relevant expertise demonstrated through publications, known conflicts of interest, and past review quality when available. Aim to invite reviewers from diverse institutions and geographic regions to ensure balanced evaluation. When authors suggest or exclude specific reviewers, editors should consider these requests thoughtfully while maintaining final authority over reviewer selection. The goal is securing fair, expert evaluation that serves both authors and the integrity of the scientific record.
Timeline Expectations: Initial scope decisions should be made within 48 hours. First-round reviews should be completed within 21 days. Editors experiencing delays should communicate proactively with the editorial office to ensure author expectations are managed appropriately throughout the editorial cycle. Regular coordination between associate editors and the editorial office ensures consistent standards, timely processing, and professional communication with authors and reviewers that maintains the journal reputation for editorial excellence and scholarly rigor in nucleic acid research publication.
