Editor's Guidelines

1. Role of Editors

Editors serve as custodians of the scholarly record. Their duties include:

• Managing the peer-review process impartially.
• Making publication decisions based solely on academic merit.
• Ensuring compliance with ethical and legal standards.
• Maintaining confidentiality of submissions and reviewer identities.

2. Editorial Independence

Editors must remain free from commercial or political influence. Decisions are based exclusively on the relevance, originality, and scientific quality of submissions. The publisher and sponsors may not interfere with editorial judgments.

3. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and publishing personnel directly involved in processing the paper.

4. Managing Conflicts of Interest

Editors should recuse themselves from handling papers where conflicts exist—such as personal relationships, institutional affiliation, or competitive interests. They must assign the manuscript to another qualified editor to ensure neutrality.

5. Responsibilities in the OJS Workflow

1. Submission Review: Verify that the submission fits the journal’s Aims and Scope and complies with formatting and ethical requirements.
2. Assigning Reviewers: Use OJS to select at least two independent reviewers based on expertise, absence of conflict, and diversity of perspective.
3. Monitoring Progress: Track reviewer deadlines, send reminders through OJS, and ensure constructive, timely feedback.
4. Editorial Decision: After reviews are received, choose “Accept,” “Minor Revision,” “Major Revision,” or “Reject.” Decisions must be reasoned and supported by reviewer reports.
5. Revision Handling: Evaluate revised manuscripts to confirm authors addressed all reviewer comments. Additional review may be requested if changes are substantial.
6. Production Preparation: Once accepted, ensure the metadata, figures, and supplementary materials are complete before forwarding to the production editor.

6. Communication with Authors

Editors should communicate respectfully and clearly. All editorial decisions must be conveyed through OJS notifications with specific feedback. Editors should avoid personal comments and maintain professionalism in tone.

7. Peer Review Integrity

Editors are responsible for maintaining a fair double-blind review system:

• Ensure reviewer anonymity and confidentiality.
• Prevent bias by selecting reviewers from diverse geographic and academic backgrounds.
• Discourage coercive citation or unconstructive criticism.
• Detect potential reviewer misconduct (plagiarism, data leaks) and report it immediately.

8. Ethical Oversight

Editors must follow COPE flowcharts when handling ethical issues such as plagiarism, fabricated data, or authorship disputes. When misconduct is suspected, the editor should gather evidence and consult the Ethics Committee before making a decision.

9. Ensuring Research Integrity

• Require ethical approvals for human or animal studies.
• Verify that consent statements are included for identifiable data or images.
• Request raw data or documentation if inconsistencies are suspected.
• Consult the Publication Ethics Policy for specific procedures.

10. Handling Appeals and Complaints

Editors must address appeals fairly and transparently. If an author contests a decision, the case should be reviewed by an independent editor or the Editor-in-Chief. Complaints regarding editors are handled by the publisher’s Ethics Committee according to COPE procedures.

11. Reviewer Selection and Management in OJS

• Check each reviewer’s expertise, responsiveness, and conflict-of-interest history.
• Use the reviewer database and maintain updated contact details.
• Avoid overburdening reviewers—track review frequency within OJS.
• Thank reviewers through acknowledgment letters or annual reviewer certificates.

12. Decision Documentation

Every decision must be logged within OJS with supporting comments. Rejections should include specific reasoning, not generic statements. This record ensures transparency and provides evidence in case of future queries or audits.

13. Post-Acceptance Workflow

1. Confirm that all metadata (title, authors, ORCID IDs, abstract, keywords) are accurate.
2. Ensure plagiarism and ethics verifications are completed.
3. Forward files to production for copy-editing and typesetting.
4. Review proofs before online publication.

14. Editorial Collaboration

Editors must cooperate with Associate Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher to improve journal quality. Regular communication during editorial meetings and annual performance evaluations supports consistency and quality assurance.

15. Data Protection and Confidentiality

Editors must comply with GDPR and ABSE’s Privacy Statement. Personal data of authors and reviewers are handled solely for editorial purposes and never disclosed without consent.

16. Handling Misconduct and Retractions

Editors must initiate corrective actions in line with ABSE’s Withdrawal Policy and Publication Ethics Policy. Retractions should be issued promptly with clear justification and linked to the original article.

17. Continuous Improvement

Editors are encouraged to stay updated with evolving editorial standards through COPE webinars, OASPA resources, and annual internal training organized by ABSE. Constructive feedback from reviewers and authors should inform process improvements.

18. Ethical Conduct and Professionalism

“Editors are entrusted with maintaining the credibility of the scientific record. Their actions must reflect impartiality, respect, and accountability at all times.”

19. Annual Evaluation

The performance of each editor is evaluated annually based on timeliness, quality of editorial decisions, adherence to ethical standards, and contribution to journal development.

20. Contact Information

• Editorial Office: [email protected]
• Ethics Committee: [email protected]
• Technical Support: [email protected]