For Editors |

Role of an Editor

Editors are the guardians of journal quality. Your role is to ensure that every manuscript receives a fair, timely, and expert evaluation — and that every decision is grounded in evidence, policy, and scholarly integrity. Editorial authority is exercised in service of the research community, not in place of it.

1. Initial Desk Assessment

All submissions must pass a desk review before being sent to peer review. Desk rejection is appropriate — and efficient — when a manuscript clearly fails one or more of the following criteria:

Scope: The manuscript does not fall within the journal's stated aims and scope.
Originality: The work appears to duplicate published material or contains significant self-plagiarism.
Methodology: The research design has a fundamental flaw that peer review cannot correct (e.g., no data, no methodology).
Format: The manuscript does not meet minimum formatting or language standards to be reviewable.
Ethics: The submission raises a clear ethics flag (undisclosed conflict, missing IRB, data fabrication).

Desk rejection should be communicated promptly — within 3 business days of submission. Authors should receive a brief, respectful explanation without detailed critique unless the reason is scope (in which case, no detailed feedback is needed).

2. Reviewer Selection

Assign at least two independent reviewers with verifiable subject expertise. When selecting reviewers:

Prefer reviewers with recent publications in the manuscript's core topic area.
Avoid co-authors, collaborators, or institutional colleagues of the submitting authors.
Do not assign reviewers named as conflicts by the authors.
Maintain geographic and disciplinary diversity where possible.
Confirm acceptance before the review window opens — do not assign and assume.

Reviewers who have not responded within 5 business days of invitation should be replaced. Do not allow review timelines to slip waiting on a non-responsive reviewer.

3. Managing the Review Process

Once reviewers are confirmed, the target timeline is:

Peer review window: 3–7 business days from reviewer confirmation
Editorial decision: Within 2 business days of the final review report received
Author notification: Immediately upon decision — do not queue decisions

Monitor the review queue actively. Send a single reminder to reviewers who are 2 days overdue. If a reviewer is 4+ days overdue with no response, replace them without waiting for the original reviewer to decline.

4. Evaluating Review Reports

Before issuing a decision, assess each review report for:

Substantive engagement with the manuscript's content and claims
Specific, actionable feedback — not vague generalisations
Absence of ad hominem, discriminatory, or non-scholarly language
Internal consistency (the recommendation aligns with the written critique)

A review that is too brief, too vague, or clearly unfair should not be relayed to authors. Return it to the reviewer for revision or commission a replacement review. You are responsible for the quality of what authors receive.

5. Editorial Decision Types

Accept: The manuscript is accepted as submitted or with minor copyediting. Use this only when no meaningful revision is required.
Minor Revision: Specific, bounded changes are required. Authors should be able to complete revisions within 7 days. Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor alone without re-review.
Major Revision: Substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript must undergo a new review round. Be explicit about what is required — a vague "revise and resubmit" is not actionable.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's quality or scope standards, and revision is unlikely to change this. Rejection should include a clear reason; authors should not have to guess why.

Do not use rejection as a soft desk rejection after peer review has been completed. If scope was the issue, catch it at desk review.

6. Decision Letters

Every decision letter must:

State the decision clearly in the first sentence
Summarise the key reasons for the decision in your own words (not just forwarding reviews)
Include all reviewer comments, clearly labelled by reviewer number
For revisions: specify a deadline and what happens if the deadline is missed
For rejections: include one sentence acknowledging the effort, without false encouragement

Avoid template letters that feel automated. Authors have invested significant effort; the response should reflect that their work was genuinely read.

7. Handling Revisions

When a revised manuscript is submitted:

Verify that a point-by-point response letter is included
For major revisions, confirm that all core issues raised by reviewers have been addressed
Return incomplete responses to the author with specific gaps identified — do not send partial responses to reviewers
If the revision satisfactorily addresses all concerns, you may accept without re-review at your discretion for minor revisions
For major revisions, return to the same reviewers where possible

8. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, and review reports are strictly confidential. Editors must not:

Share manuscript content, data, or findings with third parties before publication
Use unpublished findings from reviewed manuscripts in their own research
Reveal reviewer identities to authors (unless the journal operates open review)
Discuss ongoing reviews in any public forum

Confidentiality obligations persist after the editorial decision is made, regardless of outcome.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from any manuscript where a conflict of interest exists or could reasonably be perceived to exist. Conflicts include but are not limited to:

Co-authorship with any listed author in the past 3 years
Current or recent institutional affiliation with any listed author
Personal or professional relationships that could bias assessment
Commercial interests related to the manuscript's subject matter

If you are uncertain whether a conflict exists, recuse yourself. Disclose proactively to the Editor-in-Chief rather than waiting for a challenge.

10. Ethics and Integrity Issues

If you identify or receive a credible allegation of research misconduct during the editorial process, follow this procedure:

Do not make a unilateral decision to reject or accept based solely on your assessment
Pause the review process and notify the Editor-in-Chief immediately
Document all evidence and communications
Follow the IORO Publication Ethics Policy and relevant COPE guidelines
Authors have the right to respond to allegations before any decision is made

Ethics decisions must be made through the documented process, not by editorial discretion alone. This protects both the journal and the authors.

11. Post-Decision Workflow

Once a manuscript is accepted:

Confirm all author details, affiliations, and ORCID entries are correct and finalised
Ensure the APC has been confirmed or a waiver is on record before triggering production
Review the final proof for formatting accuracy — you are the last quality check before publication
Issue the acceptance letter and confirm DOI registration through the platform

12. Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by submitting a written statement to the editorial office. Appeals must be based on:

A factual error in the editorial assessment or review reports
Evidence that a review was biased, unfair, or outside the reviewer's expertise
New information that was unavailable at the time of submission

Appeals are not an opportunity to reargue the scientific merits already considered. The Editor-in-Chief handles all appeals; the handling editor does not adjudicate appeals of their own decisions.

For Editors