Workflow Overview
Editorial Process
This guide explains the editorial path from submission through production, including pre-check, peer review, revision, decision-making, and publication-readiness standards.
Pre-check
Each submission is screened for scope fit, file completeness, reporting readiness, and baseline ethics compliance before full external review. Editors may reject, request clarification, or move the paper into peer review depending on the manuscript’s readiness and relevance.
Peer review
Reviewer selection
Reviewers are selected for subject expertise, independence, and ability to provide useful, evidence-based reports within the expected timeframe.
Minimum evidence base
Editorial decisions should be informed by multiple independent reports wherever required by the journal’s process and manuscript type.
Open peer review
Where enabled by the journal, authors and reviewers may participate in additional transparency options such as published reports or signed identities. Participation rules depend on journal settings and must preserve fairness, consent, and confidentiality expectations.
Revision
Authors receiving revision decisions are expected to address reviewer and editor comments point by point. Revised files may return to the original reviewers, to new reviewers, or directly to editorial assessment depending on the nature of the concerns and the journal’s workflow.
Editor decision
Accept
Suitable for publication with no further substantive revision.
Minor revision
Targeted changes are required before final acceptance.
Major revision
Substantial issues remain and must be addressed for reconsideration.
Reject
The submission does not meet the journal’s threshold for fit, validity, or quality.
Reviewer recommendations inform the outcome, but the final editorial decision remains an editorial responsibility and should be justified where it diverges from reviewer advice.
Author appeals
Authors may appeal decisions by submitting a reasoned explanation, typically including point-by-point responses to the decision rationale. Appeals should be evidence-based and are reviewed independently according to editorial policy.
Production
Accepted manuscripts move into copyediting, typesetting, proof review, metadata preparation, DOI assignment, and platform publication. Production aims to improve readability and consistency without changing the scholarly meaning of the work.
Standards and ethics
Editorial workflows are expected to align with relevant reporting standards, transparency expectations, plagiarism screening, image integrity checks where appropriate, and established publication ethics practices.
Editorial independence
Editorial outcomes should be based on reviewer suitability, report quality, author response, and manuscript merit. Commercial, promotional, or personal interests must not determine publication decisions.