Guidelines for Editors
These guidelines outline the responsibilities and expectations for editors managing submissions, overseeing peer review, and ensuring the quality and integrity of published research in Proven Sciences Publication.
1. Editorial Responsibilities
1.1. Ensuring Quality and Integrity
- Maintain high editorial standards by selecting manuscripts that align with the journal’s scope and ethical policies.
- Ensure scientific rigor, originality, and relevance in all published content.
- Promote fair, transparent, and timely peer review.
- Maintain high editorial standards by selecting manuscripts that align with the journal’s scope and ethical policies.
- Ensure scientific rigor, originality, and relevance in all published content.
- Promote fair, transparent, and timely peer review.
1.2. Decision-Making Process
Editors must base decisions solely on:
- Scientific merit, originality, and clarity.
- Relevance to the journal’s scope.
- Ethical soundness (e.g., adherence to research and publication ethics).
- Scientific merit, originality, and clarity.
- Relevance to the journal’s scope.
- Ethical soundness (e.g., adherence to research and publication ethics).
Decisions must not be influenced by the author’s nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships.
1.3. Confidentiality
Editors must:
- Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts.
- Ensure that reviewers’ identities remain anonymous in the double-blind review process.
- Refrain from using unpublished data or findings for personal research or advantage.
2. Editorial Workflow
2.1. Initial Manuscript Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or an assigned handling editor will conduct a preliminary review to determine:
Suitability for the journal’s scope.
Compliance with ethical guidelines (e.g., plagiarism screening, ethical approval).
Clarity, organization, and relevance.
Manuscripts failing to meet the basic criteria may be desk rejected without further review.
2.2. Assigning Peer Reviewers
- Select at least two expert reviewers with no conflict of interest.
- Ensure that reviewers have expertise in the relevant field.
- Send an invitation to potential reviewers with clear deadlines for submission.
- If reviewers decline, promptly invite alternative experts.
2.3. Evaluating Reviewer Reports
- Assess the consistency and quality of reviewer comments.
- If reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, consider:
- o Seeking input from a third reviewer.
- o Making an editorial judgment based on the strengths of each argument.
- Provide constructive feedback to authors, summarizing key points.
2.4. Editorial Decision Making
Editors may decide to:
- Accept the manuscript as is.
- Request minor or major revisions.
- Reject the manuscript (with clear reasons).
Authors should receive timely decisions, ideally within six to eight weeks of submission.
2.5. Handling Revised Manuscripts
- Evaluate whether authors have sufficiently addressed reviewers' concerns.
- If revisions are extensive, send for a second round of review.
- Ensure final acceptance is based on merit, not just author compliance with revisions.
3. Ethical Considerations
3.1. Conflicts of Interest
Editors must be:
- Declare any potential conflicts (e.g., personal, financial, academic).
- Avoid handling manuscripts authored by colleagues, close associates, or collaborators.
- Assign a different editor if a conflict arises.
3.2. Ethical Misconduct & Corrections
If misconduct is suspected (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication):
Conduct an investigation following COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
Seek clarifications from the authors.
If confirmed, reject the manuscript and notify the author’s institution if necessary.
For published errors, consider:
- Errata for minor corrections.
- Retractions for major ethical violations.
4. Editorial Communication & Transparency
4.1. Communicating with Authors
Editors should:
- Provide constructive and respectful feedback.
- Avoid unnecessary delays in responding to authors.
- Ensure transparency in editorial decisions.
4.2. AI and Automated Tools
If AI-assisted tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, automated grammar checking) are used:
- They should supplement but not replace human judgment.
- AI cannot make final editorial decisions.
If authors have used AI tools in manuscript writing or analysis, ensure proper acknowledgment in their submission.
5. Editorial Independence
- Editorial decisions must remain free from external pressure, including:
- o Institutional influence.
- o Commercial or financial interests.
- o Political considerations.
Final publishing authority rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board.
6. Continuous Improvement
Editors should:
- Stay updated on publishing ethics and best practices.
- Participate in editorial board meetings and contribute to journal development.
- Engage with reviewers and authors to improve the overall review process.
- Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts.
- Ensure that reviewers’ identities remain anonymous in the double-blind review process.
- Refrain from using unpublished data or findings for personal research or advantage.
2. Editorial Workflow
2.1. Initial Manuscript Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or an assigned handling editor will conduct a preliminary review to determine:
Suitability for the journal’s scope.
Compliance with ethical guidelines (e.g., plagiarism screening, ethical approval).
Clarity, organization, and relevance.
Manuscripts failing to meet the basic criteria may be desk rejected without further review.
2.2. Assigning Peer Reviewers
- Select at least two expert reviewers with no conflict of interest.
- Ensure that reviewers have expertise in the relevant field.
- Send an invitation to potential reviewers with clear deadlines for submission.
- If reviewers decline, promptly invite alternative experts.
2.3. Evaluating Reviewer Reports
- Assess the consistency and quality of reviewer comments.
- If reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, consider:
- o Seeking input from a third reviewer.
- o Making an editorial judgment based on the strengths of each argument.
- Provide constructive feedback to authors, summarizing key points.
2.4. Editorial Decision Making
Editors may decide to:
- Accept the manuscript as is.
- Request minor or major revisions.
- Reject the manuscript (with clear reasons).
Authors should receive timely decisions, ideally within six to eight weeks of submission.
2.5. Handling Revised Manuscripts
- Evaluate whether authors have sufficiently addressed reviewers' concerns.
- If revisions are extensive, send for a second round of review.
- Ensure final acceptance is based on merit, not just author compliance with revisions.
3. Ethical Considerations
3.1. Conflicts of Interest
Editors must be:
- Declare any potential conflicts (e.g., personal, financial, academic).
- Avoid handling manuscripts authored by colleagues, close associates, or collaborators.
- Assign a different editor if a conflict arises.
3.2. Ethical Misconduct & Corrections
If misconduct is suspected (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication):
Conduct an investigation following COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
Seek clarifications from the authors.
If confirmed, reject the manuscript and notify the author’s institution if necessary.
For published errors, consider:
- Errata for minor corrections.
- Retractions for major ethical violations.
4. Editorial Communication & Transparency
4.1. Communicating with Authors
Editors should:
- Provide constructive and respectful feedback.
- Avoid unnecessary delays in responding to authors.
- Ensure transparency in editorial decisions.
4.2. AI and Automated Tools
If AI-assisted tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, automated grammar checking) are used:
- They should supplement but not replace human judgment.
- AI cannot make final editorial decisions.
If authors have used AI tools in manuscript writing or analysis, ensure proper acknowledgment in their submission.
5. Editorial Independence
- Editorial decisions must remain free from external pressure, including:
- o Institutional influence.
- o Commercial or financial interests.
- o Political considerations.
Final publishing authority rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board.
6. Continuous Improvement
Editors should:
- Stay updated on publishing ethics and best practices.
- Participate in editorial board meetings and contribute to journal development.
- Engage with reviewers and authors to improve the overall review process.
2. Editorial Workflow
2.1. Initial Manuscript Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or an assigned handling editor will conduct a preliminary review to determine: Suitability for the journal’s scope. Compliance with ethical guidelines (e.g., plagiarism screening, ethical approval). Clarity, organization, and relevance.
Manuscripts failing to meet the basic criteria may be desk rejected without further review.
2.2. Assigning Peer Reviewers
- Select at least two expert reviewers with no conflict of interest.
- Ensure that reviewers have expertise in the relevant field.
- Send an invitation to potential reviewers with clear deadlines for submission.
- If reviewers decline, promptly invite alternative experts.
2.3. Evaluating Reviewer Reports
- Assess the consistency and quality of reviewer comments.
- If reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, consider:
- o Seeking input from a third reviewer.
- o Making an editorial judgment based on the strengths of each argument.
- Provide constructive feedback to authors, summarizing key points.
2.4. Editorial Decision Making
Editors may decide to:
- Accept the manuscript as is.
- Request minor or major revisions.
- Reject the manuscript (with clear reasons).
Authors should receive timely decisions, ideally within six to eight weeks of submission.
- Accept the manuscript as is.
- Request minor or major revisions.
- Reject the manuscript (with clear reasons).
Authors should receive timely decisions, ideally within six to eight weeks of submission.
2.5. Handling Revised Manuscripts
- Evaluate whether authors have sufficiently addressed reviewers' concerns.
- If revisions are extensive, send for a second round of review.
- Ensure final acceptance is based on merit, not just author compliance with revisions.
3. Ethical Considerations
3.1. Conflicts of Interest
Editors must be:
- Declare any potential conflicts (e.g., personal, financial, academic).
- Avoid handling manuscripts authored by colleagues, close associates, or collaborators.
- Assign a different editor if a conflict arises.
3.2. Ethical Misconduct & Corrections
- Errata for minor corrections.
- Retractions for major ethical violations.
- Provide constructive and respectful feedback.
- Avoid unnecessary delays in responding to authors.
- Ensure transparency in editorial decisions. 4.2. AI and Automated Tools
- They should supplement but not replace human judgment.
- AI cannot make final editorial decisions.
- Editorial decisions must remain free from external pressure, including:
- o Institutional influence.
- o Commercial or financial interests.
- o Political considerations.
If misconduct is suspected (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication): Conduct an investigation following COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Seek clarifications from the authors. If confirmed, reject the manuscript and notify the author’s institution if necessary.
For published errors, consider:
4. Editorial Communication & Transparency
4.1. Communicating with Authors
Editors should:
If AI-assisted tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, automated grammar checking) are used:
If authors have used AI tools in manuscript writing or analysis, ensure proper acknowledgment in their submission.
5. Editorial Independence
Final publishing authority rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board.
If AI-assisted tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, automated grammar checking) are used:
If authors have used AI tools in manuscript writing or analysis, ensure proper acknowledgment in their submission.
5. Editorial Independence
Final publishing authority rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board.
If AI-assisted tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, automated grammar checking) are used:
If authors have used AI tools in manuscript writing or analysis, ensure proper acknowledgment in their submission.
5. Editorial IndependenceFinal publishing authority rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board.
6. Continuous Improvement
- Stay updated on publishing ethics and best practices.
- Participate in editorial board meetings and contribute to journal development.
- Engage with reviewers and authors to improve the overall review process.
Editors should: