Journal Management

The journal is led by the editor-in-chief, who oversees the peer review process, prepares strategic and communication plans, and represents the journal within the scientific community.

The editor-in-chief’s work is supported by the members of the Associate Editorial Committee, who are involved in the following management activities:

  • strategic planning and development
  • policy development
  • peer review management
  • editorial decision-making
  • outreach and promotion
  • ethical oversight
  • continuous improvement of journal management practices

Associate editors are expected manage 5-15 manuscripts yearly, and they are not expected to do reviews for the journal.

The editor-in-chief is also supported by the editorial board. Editorial board members are invited to advise the journal on the following:

  • vison and mission
  • outreach and promotion
  • continuous improvement of journal management

Editorial board members are not involved as editors in the peer review process, but they are expected to contribute as reviewers of 1-3 manuscripts yearly. Editorial board members are asked to renew their commitment in every three years, and they also have the right to withdraw from their editorial roles in the meantime.

See detailed and updated list of editorial team and editorial board members here.

Associate editor responsibilities

Our editors and employees work hard to ensure the content we publish is ethically sound. To help us achieve that goal, we closely follow the advice laid out in the guidelines and flowcharts on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) website.

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. 

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.

Reviewer responsibilities

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

The use of AI or AI assisted tools

Manuscripts may include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited reviewer who has conflicts of interest resulting from a competitive, close collaborative, or other close relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.