Purpose and Scope
These guidelines define the responsibilities, authority, and ethical obligations of Editors-in-Chief, Associate/Section Editors, and Guest Editors across all journals in the Research Pillars Publishing portfolio. They are designed to align with internationally recognized frameworks, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, the ICMJE Recommendations, and generally accepted Good Publication Practice (GPP) standards.
Individual journals may adopt supplementary, discipline-specific editorial policies (e.g., statistical review requirements, AI/ML reporting checklists), provided they remain consistent with the principles set out here, which take precedence publisher-wide.
Editorial Roles and Authority
The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) holds final responsibility for all editorial decisions and content published in the journal, and has full authority over editorial content and timing, independent of commercial or political influence.
Associate/Section Editors handle assigned manuscripts on behalf of the EiC, within the scope delegated to them, and refer decisions outside that scope back to the EiC.
Guest Editors (for special issues) operate under the oversight of the EiC and follow the same standards of conduct, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and editorial independence as permanent editorial staff.
Editorial decisions must be based solely on the manuscript's importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope — never on the authors' race, gender, nationality, religion, political beliefs, or institutional affiliation.
Editorial Independence
Editors must be free to make decisions without interference from the Publisher, sponsors, advertisers, or other commercial interests.
Business and editorial decisions must remain separate. Advertising, reprint, or sponsorship revenue must never influence editorial content or acceptance decisions.
Editors must have documented authority to retract, correct, or issue expressions of concern on published content when warranted, without requiring external commercial approval.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where they have a competing interest — including co-authorship, shared institutional affiliation, personal relationships, direct financial interest, or recent collaboration with the authors (typically within 3 years).
Recused manuscripts must be reassigned to another qualified editor, and the recusal documented.
Editors must disclose their own competing interests (consulting, board memberships, equity, funding sources) annually and update disclosures as circumstances change.
Editors should not use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts in their own research without the authors' explicit written consent.
Manuscript Handling Process
Initial screening. Editors assess new submissions for scope fit, originality (via similarity/plagiarism screening), completeness, and adherence to author guidelines before sending to review.
Reviewer selection. Editors select reviewers with relevant expertise and no disqualifying conflicts of interest (see the publisher's Reviewer Guidelines), aiming for balanced, independent perspectives.
Timeliness. Editors are responsible for managing the review timeline, sending reminders to reviewers, and keeping authors reasonably informed of status and expected timeframes.
Decision-making. Final decisions (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) must be based on the manuscript's merit, reviewer feedback, and journal scope. Editors should provide authors with a clear rationale, especially for rejection.
Consistency. Editors should apply the same evaluation standards across all submissions, regardless of the author's seniority, geography, or prior relationship with the journal.
Confidentiality
Editors must keep all submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities (unless open review is explicitly used), and review content confidential, disclosing them only to those directly involved in the editorial process.
Editors must not share unpublished manuscript content with anyone outside the editorial workflow, including third-party AI tools or platforms not covered by a confidentiality agreement with the publisher, without author consent.
Reviewer comments intended for the editor only (confidential comments) must never be forwarded to authors.
Research and Publication Ethics
Editors are responsible for upholding ethical standards in everything the journal publishes, including:
Human/animal research compliance. Verifying that studies involving human participants or animals report appropriate ethics approval and informed consent, in line with relevant reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE).
Data and image integrity. Being alert to signs of data fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate image manipulation, and following COPE flowcharts when concerns arise.
Authorship disputes. Mediating authorship or contributorship disputes fairly, referring to ICMJE authorship criteria, without taking sides based on seniority.
Plagiarism and redundant publication. Using similarity-detection tools at submission and acting on concerns raised at any stage, including post-publication.
Undisclosed AI use. Requiring authors to disclose any generative AI tools used in the research or manuscript preparation, and treating undisclosed material AI-generated content (data, text, images) as a potential integrity issue.
Funding and sponsor influence. Ensuring published research discloses funding sources and that sponsors had no undisclosed influence over study design, analysis, or reporting.
Handling Allegations of Misconduct
Allegations of misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflicts, authorship disputes, etc.) must be investigated promptly, fairly, and confidentially, following COPE guidance.
Editors should give the accused party a fair opportunity to respond before reaching a conclusion.
Where an allegation involves an author's affiliated institution, editors may refer the matter to that institution for formal investigation while retaining editorial oversight of any resulting corrections or retractions.
Editors must not dismiss misconduct concerns based on an author's seniority, reputation, or relationship to the journal.
Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
Editors must act on credible evidence that a published article is seriously flawed or fraudulent, seeking to correct the scientific record promptly, in line with COPE retraction guidelines.
Correction is used for honest errors that do not undermine the work's overall validity.
Expression of Concern is issued when an issue is under investigation and needs interim flagging.
Retraction is used when findings are unreliable due to misconduct or major error, or when the work is duplicative, plagiarized, or unethical.
Authors should be given the opportunity to respond before a retraction is finalized, except where this is not possible or appropriate.
Appeals
Authors have the right to formally appeal a rejection decision. Editors must have a clear, documented process for handling appeals, distinct from the original review.
Appeals should be considered by the handling editor in consultation with, where appropriate, an editor not involved in the original decision, or a new independent reviewer.
The outcome of an appeal, and the reasoning behind it, should be communicated clearly to the author.
Communication Standards
Editors must communicate with authors and reviewers professionally, respectfully, and within reasonable timeframes.
Decision letters should be clear, specific, and constructive, whether the outcome is positive or negative.
Editors should protect reviewer anonymity (in single- or double-anonymous review models) and never reveal reviewer identities to authors without explicit reviewer consent.
Use of AI Tools in Editorial Work
Editors may use AI tools for administrative support (e.g., drafting routine correspondence, initial screening for scope fit) but must not rely on AI tools as a substitute for editorial judgment on scientific merit or ethical matters.
Confidential manuscript content must not be entered into generative AI tools or third-party platforms lacking an appropriate data-protection agreement with the publisher.
Any substantive editorial decision must be made, and be accountable to, a named human editor.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Editors should work toward diverse and representative Editorial Boards and reviewer pools across gender, geography, career stage, and institutional background.
Editorial policies and decisions should be applied equitably, with attention to potential barriers faced by authors from under-resourced institutions or regions (e.g., fee waiver policies, language support).
Editorial Board Governance
Editorial Board members, including the EiC, should be appointed based on relevant expertise and subject to periodic review of their contribution and engagement.
Editors should have documented succession plans for key editorial roles to ensure continuity.
Editorial Board composition, roles, and any material changes in editorial leadership should be transparently communicated on the journal's website.