For Editors

Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

• Final responsibility for journal content, profile, and reputation, ensuring aims and scope evolve with the field and that the journal is strategically developed with the publisher.
• Makes independent publication decisions based on the work’s validity and relevance, guided by editorial policies and legal requirements (libel, copyright, plagiarism), and may confer with editors/reviewers when needed.
• Ensures a fair, unbiased, and timely peer review process, typically securing at least two independent expert reviews for research articles and seeking additional opinions as necessary.
• Selects qualified reviewers, avoids fraudulent reviewers, evaluates conflict‑of‑interest disclosures, and oversees suggestions for self‑citation to mitigate bias.
• Enforces “fair play”: evaluates manuscripts for intellectual content without discrimination and promotes transparent, honest reporting with clear expectations for authors and reviewers.
• Establishes a transparent appeals mechanism in coordination with the publisher; handles appeal or designates an appropriate editor/committee member, ensuring conflicts of interest are managed by assigning a different editor when required.
• Leads Editorial Board selection (with publisher input), engages the Board on journal progress and development, and provides strategic input supported by performance reporting from publishing staff.
• Promotes the journal to the community and may highlight opportunities (e.g., special issues, advertising, reprints) where appropriate, without compromising editorial independence.

Associate/Section Editors

• Manage peer review for assigned manuscripts: scope assessment, reviewer selection, review oversight, synthesis of reports, and recommendations to the EIC consistent with journal policies and ethical standards.
• Uphold fair, unbiased assessment; identify ethical issues (e.g., overlap, misconduct), and advise on corrective actions in consultation with the EIC and publisher as needed.
• Support the journal’s strategic development by identifying topical areas, commissioning content, and advising on special issues within their domains.

Editorial Board (Editorial/Advisory Board)

• Provide subject‑matter expertise to review manuscripts, advise on policy and scope, identify/guest‑edit special issues, attract submissions, and promote the journal.
• Assist editors in difficult decisions, including disputes or plagiarism claims, and cases where reviewers cannot agree, bringing collective judgment to maintain standards.
• Are selected by editors (with publisher input) to reflect the journal’s scope, geographic reach, and institutional representation; boards are refreshed periodically to sustain quality and diversity.

Reviewers (part of the editorial process)

• Evaluate submissions for technical quality, completeness, accuracy, and interest for the journal’s readership, advising editors on suitability and improvements.
• Help uphold integrity by identifying invalid research, ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, misconduct), and undisclosed conflicts, and by providing objective, constructive feedback.
• Declare competing interests and recuse when necessary to avoid bias; recommendations are advisory, with final decisions resting with editors.

Publisher’s Role in Supporting Editorial Independence and Ethics

• Safeguards editorial independence by ensuring commercial interests (ads, reprints) do not influence editorial decisions, and supports best practices on ethics, errors, and retractions.
• Partners with editors to provide policies, legal/ethical guidance, and decision frameworks for handling complaints, corrections, retractions, and removals as part of maintaining the scholarly record.

Appeals Handling (Interface with Editorial Team)

• Appeals are considered for peer‑reviewed manuscripts via a formal, written process led by the EIC or a designated representative (e.g., ethics committee member), or Elsevier staff depending on the issue.
• When conflicts of interest are alleged against an editor, another board member handles the appeal; reconsideration may involve re‑review and substantive revision, and only one appeal per submission is allowed.

Ethical Case Management

• Editors coordinate with the publisher to gather facts, give authors an opportunity to respond, and determine remedies proportionate to issues identified (e.g., corrigendum, expression of concern, retraction, or, in rare cases, removal).
• Legal review is sought in complex or potentially defamatory situations, or where legal rights are implicated; sanctions and communications are weighed carefully by the EIC.

Practical Expectations and Standards

• Use the journal’s standard submission system for all communications, maintain confidentiality, and ensure transparent policies for authors and reviewers.
• Proactively commission high‑quality manuscripts to maintain publication schedules and align content with evolving research directions, collaborating closely with publishing staff on performance and development strategies.
• Build and maintain a diverse, expert reviewer and board community to reduce bias and strengthen decision quality and inclusivity across the editorial process.