Iran University of Medical Sciences • Journals

Resources for journal editors

A central hub for Editors-in-Chief, associate editors and editorial board members working with IUMS journals. This page supports fair, efficient and ethics-driven editorial practice across the journal portfolio.

Editorial workflow Ethics cases Training and support
On this page:
Audience Editors and boards For EiCs, handling editors and editorial board members.
Applies to IUMS portfolio Journal-specific procedures may add further steps.
Core principle Independence Editorial decisions must be merit-based and documented.
When in doubt Pause and escalate Seek advice for serious ethics or legal concerns.
A

Editorial roles & shared responsibilities

EiC, associate editors & board

Each IUMS journal has its own editorial structure, but all editors share common responsibilities: safeguarding the scientific record, ensuring fair peer review, and applying publisher-level policies consistently.

Core expectations for all editors

Editors are expected to act independently, transparently and in line with the journal aims and IUMS-wide policies. Decisions must be based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness and ethical acceptability, not on commercial, institutional or personal interests.

  • Apply journal scope and standards consistently to all submissions.
  • Ensure prompt, courteous communication with authors and reviewers.
  • Respect confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewer identities.
  • Declare and actively manage your own conflicts of interest.
  • Follow IUMS and COPE-informed guidance when ethical issues arise.
Independence Fair peer review Confidentiality Integrity

Role overview

Provides overall scientific and ethical direction for the journal, leads the editorial board and typically has final responsibility for acceptance or rejection decisions.

  • Defines and updates aims, scope and editorial priorities.
  • Appoints and reviews associate editors and board members.
  • Oversees complex or sensitive cases.
  • Acts as the main liaison with the publisher and host institution.

Manage individual submissions from initial assessment through peer review to recommendation, following journal and portfolio policies.

  • Assess suitability for scope and basic quality at submission.
  • Invite appropriate, independent reviewers.
  • Draft clear, constructive decision letters.
  • Flag possible ethical or integrity concerns to the EiC or publisher.

Support the journal by reviewing, advising on strategy and promoting submissions from diverse communities.

  • Provide expert peer review in their area of expertise.
  • Advise on emerging topics, special issues and guest editorship.
  • Champion ethical standards within their networks.
  • Help broaden the journal geographic and disciplinary reach.
Tip: New editors should receive a clear role description from the EiC or journal office. If expectations are unclear, ask for a written summary of duties and decision-making authority.
B

Editorial workflow & peer review decisions

Submission to final decision

While each journal may customise steps in its online system, all IUMS journals should follow a transparent and documented process from first check to final decision and, when appropriate, decision appeals.

Typical decision pathway

Initial checksCompleteness, plagiarism screening results and basic ethical information.
Scope and quality triageFit to journal scope, novelty, method quality and reporting clarity.
Reviewer selectionIndependent reviewers with appropriate expertise and no disqualifying conflicts.
Review synthesisWeigh reviewer reports, consistency, prior revisions and ethics notes.
Decision letterIssue a clear decision with actionable comments and respectful tone.
Appeals or queriesConsider well-reasoned appeals according to the peer review and appeals policy.

Good practice in handling reviews

Editors are not vote counters. Reviewer comments are expert input, but the final responsibility for the decision rests with the editor acting in line with journal policy.

  • Address clear mistakes or inappropriate language in reviewer reports before forwarding to authors.
  • Explain how conflicting reviews were weighed in your decision letter.
  • Use reject and resubmit only when scientifically justified.
  • Avoid unnecessary rounds of revision once key issues are resolved.
Remember: Editorial correspondence is part of the scholarly record. Keep it factual, professional and consistent with the journal stated peer review model.
C

Managing ethics & research integrity cases

COPE-informed approach

Editors are often the first to notice or receive reports of potential problems: plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, authorship disputes or undisclosed conflicts of interest.

When concerns arise

  • Document what has been observed or reported, including dates, versions and evidence.
  • Do not accuse authors without clarifying facts and consulting the EiC when appropriate.
  • Contact the journal ethics contact or IUMS publications office for high-risk or complex cases.
  • Use the Research ethics & integrity policy and recognised ethics flowcharts as references.

Many issues can be resolved with clarification and correction; others may require institutional investigation or retraction. Escalation should be proportionate and well documented.

Typical categories of issues

  • Plagiarism and text recycling: substantial unacknowledged overlap with published work.
  • Data fabrication or falsification: implausible, inconsistent or manipulated data or images.
  • Authorship and contributorship: disputes about authorship qualification or order.
  • Ethics oversight: missing approvals, consent or registrations where mandatory.
  • Peer review manipulation: fake reviewer identities or attempts to influence reviewer selection.
Confidentiality: Handle allegations discreetly, share details only with those who need to know, and avoid defamation by sticking to verifiable facts and clear documentation.
D

Working with the online submission system

Practical operations

Although IUMS journals may use different journal management systems, the core tasks for editors are similar: assessing new submissions, assigning reviewers, tracking revisions and recording decisions.

Key editor tasks

  • Regularly check new submissions or awaiting assignment queues.
  • Maintain a diverse, up-to-date reviewer pool with accurate expertise tags.
  • Use system reminders judiciously to follow up overdue reviews.
  • Record decisions and required revisions clearly in the system.
  • Ensure accepted versions meet formatting and policy requirements before production.
Data protection: Treat user accounts, reviewer emails and uploaded files as confidential. Do not export or reuse them outside the system without appropriate permission.

Using AI and digital tools as an editor

Editors may use carefully selected tools to support workload management or language clarity, but human judgement and accountability must remain central.

  • Do not upload unpublished manuscripts to public AI tools or services that log content.
  • AI-based assistance must complement, not replace, editorial decision-making.
  • Follow the portfolio-level AI & digital tools policy for reviewers and editors.
  • If AI is used internally for triage, explain this transparently where appropriate.
Confidentiality Human oversight Responsible AI use
E

Ongoing training, feedback & development

Editorial development

Editorial work evolves with new methods, technologies and expectations from authors and readers. IUMS supports continuous development of editors through guidance, workshops and feedback mechanisms.

Learning and reflection

  • Review decision patterns and turnaround times periodically to identify bottlenecks.
  • Discuss challenging or borderline cases within the editorial team while maintaining confidentiality.
  • Participate in IUMS or external workshops on peer review, ethics and open science.
  • Stay up to date with international guidance from COPE, ICMJE, EQUATOR and others.
Feedback culture: Invite constructive feedback from authors, reviewers and fellow editors about how the journal editorial process can be improved.

When to contact the IUMS publications office

Please reach out to the central IUMS journal office if you encounter:

  • Suspected serious misconduct requiring institutional investigation.
  • Legal or defamation risks related to published or submitted content.
  • Requests for large-scale corrections, retractions or expressions of concern.
  • Conflicts of interest that affect your ability to handle a manuscript impartially.

Contact details for the publications office and each journal editorial office are listed on the journal websites and on the central About / Contact page.