Editor Guidelines
1. Purpose and Scope
OAOriginals is committed to supporting ethical, transparent, and scientifically rigorous scholarly publishing. These Editor Guidelines provide a framework for editors responsible for evaluating, managing, and publishing research manuscripts in journals under the OAOriginals publishing program.
Editors are expected to uphold the integrity of the scholarly record, promote high-quality research, maintain editorial independence, and ensure that manuscripts are handled fairly and consistently.
These guidelines apply to:
* Editors-in-Chief
* Associate Editors
* Section Editors
* Editorial Board Members involved in editorial decisions
* Guest Editors
* Other editors appointed to manage manuscripts or special issues
The guidelines should be read together with the relevant journal's Aims and Scope, Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics Policy, Author Guidelines, and Corrections and Retractions Policy.
2. Editorial Principles
Editors shall conduct their responsibilities in accordance with the following principles:
1. Scientific integrity: Ensure that published research meets appropriate standards of scientific quality, accuracy, and ethical conduct.
2. Editorial independence: Make publication decisions based on scholarly merit and the journal's scope, without inappropriate influence from commercial interests, publication fees, personal relationships, or external pressure.
3. Fairness and impartiality: Evaluate manuscripts without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, religion, political beliefs, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.
4. Transparency: Maintain clearly defined editorial procedures and communicate relevant policies to authors, reviewers, and editorial board members.
5. Confidentiality: Protect confidential information relating to manuscripts, peer review, and editorial deliberations.
6. Accountability: Take appropriate action when concerns arise regarding published or submitted research.
3. Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief provides the journal's overall editorial leadership and is responsible for maintaining its scientific direction, quality, and editorial integrity.
The Editor-in-Chief shall:
* Establish and maintain the journal's scientific aims, scope, and editorial standards.
* Oversee the editorial workflow and ensure that manuscripts are processed fairly and consistently.
* Appoint, coordinate, and evaluate members of the editorial team in collaboration with the publisher, where applicable.
* Make or oversee final editorial decisions in accordance with the journal's decision-making policy.
* Ensure that peer review is conducted by appropriately qualified and independent reviewers.
* Address allegations of research misconduct, conflicts of interest, and ethical concerns.
* Ensure appropriate corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary.
* Review the journal's editorial policies periodically and support continuous improvement.
* Maintain communication with the publisher, editorial board, authors, and reviewers.
The Editor-in-Chief should be accountable for the journal's published content while preserving editorial independence.
4. Responsibilities of Associate and Section Editors
Associate Editors and Section Editors support the Editor-in-Chief in the assessment and management of manuscripts within their assigned areas of expertise.
Their responsibilities include:
* Evaluating manuscripts for relevance to the journal's scope.
* Conducting an initial assessment of scientific quality, originality, and ethical compliance.
* Identifying and inviting qualified peer reviewers.
* Assessing the quality and relevance of submitted reviewer reports.
* Recommending editorial decisions based on the available evidence.
* Communicating with authors and reviewers throughout the editorial process.
* Identifying potential conflicts of interest and escalating ethical concerns.
* Maintaining confidentiality regarding manuscripts and editorial deliberations.
Associate Editors must not make decisions based on personal interests, financial considerations, or relationships with authors.
5. Editorial Board Member Responsibilities
Editorial Board Members contribute to the academic development and quality of the journal.
They may be expected to:
* Provide expert advice on the journal's scientific direction.
* Review manuscripts within their area of expertise when requested.
* Recommend qualified reviewers and potential authors.
* Support the development of special issues, thematic collections, and scholarly initiatives.
* Provide feedback on editorial policies and journal operations.
* Promote the journal's scientific objectives through appropriate professional engagement.
* Disclose conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality.
Editorial Board Members should understand their assigned responsibilities, expected level of participation, and applicable appointment terms. COPE recommends that journals clearly define editorial board roles and expectations.
6. Manuscript Submission and Initial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts should undergo an initial editorial assessment before being assigned for peer review.
6.1 Scope and Relevance
Editors should determine whether the manuscript:
* Falls within the journal's published aims and scope.
* Addresses a relevant scientific or scholarly topic.
* Meets the basic requirements specified in the Author Guidelines.
* Presents sufficient information for editorial assessment.
A manuscript that falls outside the journal's scope may be declined without external peer review.
6.2 Preliminary Scientific Assessment
Editors should assess the manuscript for:
* Scientific relevance and potential contribution.
* Clarity of the research question or objective.
* General methodological suitability.
* Completeness of essential information.
* Apparent ethical or integrity concerns.
* Compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
The initial assessment is not a substitute for substantive peer review. A decision to proceed to review does not guarantee publication.
6.3 Desk Rejection
Editors may decline a manuscript before external peer review when, for example:
* It is outside the journal's scope.
* It does not meet the journal's minimum editorial or scientific requirements.
* There are substantial concerns regarding research integrity or ethical compliance.
* The manuscript is unsuitable for the publication type.
* The manuscript does not provide sufficient information for meaningful evaluation.
Editorial decisions should be based on the journal's established standards rather than the authors' identity or ability to pay publication charges.
7. Peer Review Management
OAOriginals journals should clearly identify the applicable peer-review model and communicate it to authors and reviewers.
7.1 Reviewer Selection
Editors should select reviewers who:
* Possess relevant subject-matter expertise.
* Can provide an objective and constructive assessment.
* Have no inappropriate conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or research.
* Are able to review the manuscript within the requested timeframe.
* Agree to maintain confidentiality.
Reviewers should not be selected solely on the basis of personal recommendations from authors without appropriate editorial assessment.
7.2 Review Quality
Editors should evaluate whether reviewer reports:
* Address the manuscript's scientific content.
* Provide meaningful reasoning for recommendations.
* Identify methodological or ethical concerns where relevant.
* Maintain a professional and respectful tone.
* Avoid inappropriate personal criticism.
Editors may request additional reviews when existing reports are insufficient, contradictory, or raise significant unresolved concerns.
7.3 Editorial Decision-Making
Editorial decisions may include:
* Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's requirements and can proceed to publication.
* Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before a final decision.
* Major Revision: Substantial revisions or additional clarification are required.
* Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements.
The journal may adapt these categories according to its manuscript types and editorial workflow.
Peer review should be fair, appropriately documented, and consistent with the journal's published policy.
8. Editorial Decision Criteria
9. Conflicts of Interest
Editors must identify and appropriately manage conflicts of interest that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, editorial independence.
Potential conflicts may involve:
* Personal, professional, or institutional relationships with authors.
* Current or recent collaboration with manuscript authors.
* Financial interests connected to the research or publication.
* Competitive or adversarial relationships.
* Editorial involvement in a manuscript authored by the editor.
* Multiple editorial roles that create conflicting responsibilities.
9.1 Management of Conflicts
When an editor has a relevant conflict of interest, the manuscript should be reassigned to an appropriately independent editor whenever practicable.
Editors should disclose relevant conflicts and refrain from influencing the editorial decision where their impartiality may be affected.
Journals should establish clear policies for handling submissions from editorial board members and other individuals with editorial connections.
10. Confidentiality and Data Protection
Editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and associated editorial information.
Editors shall:
* Not disclose manuscript contents to unauthorized individuals.
* Not share unpublished research findings for personal or professional advantage.
* Use manuscript information only for legitimate editorial purposes.
* Protect reviewer identities where the journal's review model requires anonymity.
* Handle personal information in accordance with applicable privacy and data protection requirements.
Information about a submitted manuscript should be shared only with authorized individuals involved in the editorial process, subject to the journal's policies.
11. Research Integrity and Publication Ethics
Editors have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the scholarly record and respond appropriately to potential publication misconduct.
Concerns may include:
* Plagiarism and unattributed copying.
* Duplicate or redundant publication.
* Fabrication or falsification of research data.
* Inappropriate authorship or contributorship.
* Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
* Manipulation of citations.
* Ethical approval or consent concerns.
* Peer-review manipulation.
* Misleading or inaccurate reporting.
11.1 Handling Ethical Concerns
When a concern is identified, editors should:
1. Review the available information and determine whether further investigation is required.
2. Seek clarification or supporting documentation from relevant parties when appropriate.
3. Consult the publisher or other qualified advisers where necessary.
4. Follow applicable ethical guidance and the journal's established procedures.
5. Document decisions and actions taken.
6. Issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction when justified by the evidence.
Allegations should be handled fairly and confidentially, without assuming misconduct before an appropriate assessment. COPE provides guidance on handling research integrity concerns and retractions.
12. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
12.1 Corrections
A correction may be published when a factual, typographical, methodological, or other error affects the article but does not justify retraction.
12.2 Retractions
Retraction may be considered when a published article is sufficiently unreliable, misleading, or affected by serious ethical or research integrity concerns.
Retraction notices should explain the reason for retraction and be linked clearly to the original article.
12.3 Expressions of Concern
An expression of concern may be used when a significant issue requires further investigation but the available evidence is not yet sufficient for a final correction or retraction decision.
The journal should follow established procedures and document the basis for any action. COPE's retraction guidance emphasizes correcting the scholarly record and addressing serious publication concerns in a timely manner.
13. Editorial Independence and Publication Charges
Editorial decisions must be independent of publication fees, waivers, discounts, sponsorships, or other commercial considerations.
Editors must not:
* Accept or reject manuscripts based on the authors' ability to pay.
* Promise acceptance in exchange for payment.
* Allow financial considerations to influence peer-review outcomes.
* Pressure authors to purchase services as a condition of scientific acceptance.
* Permit commercial interests to compromise the integrity of editorial decisions.
14. Responsibilities of Guest Editors
14.1 Scientific Responsibilities
Guest Editors may contribute by:
* Helping define the scientific focus and scope of the Special Issue.
* Recommending relevant research themes and emerging topics.
* Suggesting potential contributors and subject-matter experts.
* Providing scientific guidance on the Special Issue's direction.
* Reviewing manuscripts assigned to them in accordance with the journal's editorial policy.
14.2 Editorial Team Support
* Contributor invitations and communications.
* Manuscript submission and tracking.
* Initial editorial screening.
* Peer-review coordination.
* Reviewer communications.
* Revision follow-up.
* Administrative and production coordination.
14.3 Guest Editor Conflicts
Guest Editors must disclose conflicts of interest and must not participate in decisions where their independence is compromised. Manuscripts authored by a Guest Editor should be handled through an independent editorial process.
Guest Editors should not guarantee publication or bypass the journal's peer-review and ethical standards.
15. Editorial Communication
Editors should communicate with authors and reviewers in a professional, respectful, and timely manner.
15.1 Communication with Authors
Editors should:
* Provide clear information about editorial decisions.
* Communicate revision requirements in a constructive manner.
* Avoid unnecessarily vague or misleading statements.
* Explain significant delays where appropriate.
* Respect the confidentiality of authors' research and personal information.
15.2 Communication with Reviewers
Editors should:
* Provide sufficient information for reviewers to assess manuscripts.
* Set reasonable review deadlines.
* Maintain reviewer confidentiality where applicable.
* Communicate relevant decisions and guidance.
* Address inappropriate reviewer conduct.
16. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Editorial Work
Editors must use artificial intelligence tools responsibly and in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.
16.1 Acceptable Considerations
AI-assisted tools may be used where appropriate for administrative or editorial support, subject to confidentiality, accuracy, and data protection requirements.
Examples may include:
* Administrative organization of manuscript information.
* Language or formatting assistance, where permitted.
* Identifying potential editorial issues for human review.
16.2 Editorial Accountability
Editors remain responsible for editorial decisions and must not delegate final scholarly judgment to an AI system.
Editors should not upload confidential manuscript content, reviewer reports, or personal information into AI services unless the journal's policies and applicable data protection requirements permit such use.
AI-generated suggestions must be critically evaluated, and any relevant disclosure requirements must be followed.
17. Editorial Board Appointments and Performance
Appointment considerations may include:
* Relevant academic or professional expertise.
* Research experience and subject knowledge.
* Commitment to publication ethics.
* Ability to contribute to editorial responsibilities.
* Appropriate professional conduct.
18. Editorial Performance and Continuous Improvement
Editors should periodically review the effectiveness of editorial processes and identify opportunities for improvement.
Relevant areas include:
* Peer-review quality and efficiency.
* Manuscript processing and communication.
* Ethical issue management.
* Author and reviewer feedback.
* Editorial board participation.
* Transparency of journal policies.
* Accuracy and consistency of published content.
19. Accountability and Compliance
All editors appointed to OAOriginals journals are expected to follow these guidelines and the policies of their respective journals.
Failure to comply with editorial, ethical, or confidentiality requirements may result in:
* Review of editorial responsibilities.
* Additional guidance or training.
* Reassignment of editorial duties.
* Suspension or termination of editorial appointment, where appropriate.
Any action should be proportionate to the circumstances and consistent with applicable policies and procedures.
20. Policy Review and Updates
These Editor Guidelines should be reviewed periodically by OAOriginals and updated when necessary to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, publication ethics, technology, and applicable requirements.
Editorial Declaration
All editors serving OAOriginals journals are expected to uphold the principles of scientific integrity, fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and editorial independence. Editorial decisions should be based on the quality, relevance, and ethical integrity of the submitted work, without inappropriate influence from commercial interests or personal relationships.
OAOriginals is committed to supporting responsible editorial practices and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly publishing record.