Purpose: The Editors page (or section) details the roles and responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief and associate editors. It reassures authors and indexers that editorial decisions are made independently and ethically.
Content and Elements:
- Editorial Structure: Describe the editorial team hierarchy (Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board). Explain how manuscripts are allocated. For example: “The Editor-in-Chief (who is a senior scholar in AI/CS) oversees all submissions. Associate Editors handle manuscripts in their subfields. If an editor has a conflict of interest on a submission, it is reassigned.”
- Editor Duties: List key duties in bullet form, similar to [20] and [36]. For example:
- Fair Decision-Making: “Editors base decisions solely on manuscript quality and relevance. Personal factors (e.g. authors’ reputation, geography) do not influence decisions.”
- Peer Review Oversight: “Ensure each paper receives timely, unbiased peer review. Choose qualified reviewers, monitor review progress, and intervene if necessary (e.g. replace unresponsive reviewers).”
- Ethics Management: “Editors screen submissions for ethical compliance (plagiarism, ethics approvals). Suspected misconduct triggers investigation following COPE flowcharts. Editors authorize corrections or retractions when needed.”
- Confidentiality: “Handle all manuscripts confidentially; do not disclose contents or use privileged information”
- Communication: “Provide clear decision letters to authors, including the editor’s reasoning and anonymized reviewer comments. Maintain professional correspondence.”
- Appeals and Complaints: “Review appeals impartially. If an author appeals (with new evidence), the Editor-in-Chief may re-evaluate the decision. Maintain documentation of all decisions and correspondence.”
- Timeliness: “Aim for prompt handling at each stage. Track processing times and set reminders to meet our target timelines.”
- Board Management: “Recruit qualified editors/reviewers, mentor new board members, and update the board with the journal’s goals.”
- Conflict of Interest: “Any editor with a personal or financial interest in a manuscript must recuse from handling that submission.”
- Ethical Training: “Stay informed of best practices (through COPE/WAME training) to ensure adherence to evolving standards.”
Templates/Examples: Provide standard editor decision letter formats. For instance:
“Dear [Author], Thank you for submitting your manuscript ‘Title’ to CJCAI. We have received two expert reviews, and the editorial recommendation is [Accept/Minor Rev/Major Rev/Reject]. Reviewer 1 notes [summary], Reviewer 2 notes [summary]. We invite you to submit a revised manuscript addressing the reviewers’ comments. Please detail how each point is addressed. We look forward to your revision.”
Scopus/WoS Notes: Indexers look for evidence of editorial rigor. By articulating these duties, we demonstrate adherence to COPE’s Code for editors. It also ensures transparency and accountability, which are key WoS criteria.