For Editors

The Editorial Team’s role is to maintain and improve the quality of the published content, promote the journal among the scientific community of the subject field, invite authors and researchers to contribute to the journals, and reshape the journal for improvement. Editors are expected to work closely with the publication staff as some of the roles between the two overlap.

Role in the Editorial Workflow

From submission to publication, the entire publication process is conducted online using the Open Journal System 3. Although the system is user-friendly, all editors are encouraged to develop an understanding of the system. A comprehensive written guide can be found here, and videos on the editorial workflow can be found here.

Once a submission is received, it will be assigned to a suitable Section Editor in their field of expertise. A notification email with the Editorial Assignment will be sent automatically through the online system. The editors will have the option to decline the request if they cannot take up this assignment.

Upon accepting the assignment, the Section Editor will conduct the initial evaluation, handle the peer review, request revisions and take the Editorial Decision.

The following guidelines might help them in carrying out their duties:

  • While conducting the initial evaluation, the Section Editor should ensure that the article falls within the journal's scope and is prepared according to the Guidelines for Authors. The article should also present sound content suitable for publication and should not violate the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Policy.
  • The Section Editor is expected to find at least two appropriate referees whose qualifications and expertise match the article or the topic for rigorous peer review. Help can be sought from the publication staff at this step.
  • It is the Section Editor's responsibility to decide to accept, reject or send the article back to the author for revision. They should base their decisions on the suggestions and comments of the referees.
  • When the Section Editor requests a revision, the request should be accompanied by the review comments. The requested improvement should be indicated and clarified in detail. It is to be noted that the revised versions should not be accepted unless they meet the set demands and quality standards.
  • The Section Editor's final decision should be well justified and explained in detail, especially when proposing to declare the article unfit for publication or sending the article back for revision. The author(s) should be able to understand the reasons for not accepting their article, and the Section Editor should answer all the authors' queries regarding this matter.