Resources for journal editors

This hub brings together guidance, expectations and practical tools for Editors-in-Chief, associate editors and editorial board members working with IUMS journals. It supports you in running fair, efficient and ethics-driven peer review.

Aligned with COPE, ICMJE and IUMS policies
For all editors across the IUMS journal portfolio
A

Editorial roles & shared responsibilities

Editor-in-Chief, 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 the publisher-level policies consistently across submissions.

Core expectations for all editors

Editors are expected to act independently, transparently and in line with the journal’s stated aims and IUMS-wide policies. Decisions must be based on the scholarly merit, methodological soundness and ethical acceptability of the work, 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 guidance when potential ethical issues arise.
Independence Fair peer review Confidentiality Integrity

Role overview

Editor-in-Chief (EiC)
Strategic leadership & final responsibility
›

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

  • Defines and updates aims, scope and editorial priorities.
  • Appoints and reviews associate editors and board members.
  • Oversees handling of complex or sensitive cases.
  • Acts as the main liaison with the publisher and the host institution.
Associate / handling editors
Day-to-day manuscript management
›

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 and follow up as needed.
  • Draft clear, constructive decision letters based on reviewer input and editorial judgement.
  • Flag possible ethical or integrity concerns to the EiC or publisher.
Editorial board members
Advisory & ambassador roles
›

Support the journal by reviewing, advising on strategy and promoting submissions from diverse communities, in line with IUMS diversity and inclusion goals.

  • 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’s 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

From submission to final decision

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

Typical decision pathway

  1. Initial checks. The editorial office and/or handling editor verifies completeness, plagiarism screening results and basic ethical information (approvals, consent, registrations).
  2. Scope & quality triage (“desk review”). The editor assesses fit to journal scope, novelty, methodological robustness and reporting clarity.
  3. Reviewer selection. Independent reviewers with appropriate expertise and no disqualifying conflicts of interest are invited.
  4. Review synthesis. The editor weighs reviewer reports, checks for consistency and considers additional information (e.g. prior revisions or ethics notes).
  5. Decision letter. The editor issues a clear decision (accept, revise, reject) with actionable comments, ensuring a respectful tone even when declining.
  6. Appeals or queries. Well-reasoned appeals are considered according to the peer review & appeals policy.
Desk review Reviewer selection Decision letters

Good practice in handling reviews

Editors are not “vote counters”. You should use reviewer comments as 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 & resubmit as new” only when scientifically justified, not to reset timelines.
  • Avoid requesting 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’s 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. IUMS journals follow COPE-aligned processes to handle such concerns consistently and fairly.

When concerns arise

  • Document what has been observed or reported, including dates, versions and evidence.
  • Do not accuse authors without first clarifying the facts and consulting the EiC if you are a handling editor.
  • Contact the journal’s ethics contact or IUMS publications office for high-risk or complex cases.
  • Use the Research ethics & integrity policy and COPE flowcharts as your primary reference.

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 & text recycling: substantial unacknowledged overlap with published work.
  • Data fabrication/falsification: implausible, inconsistent or manipulated data or images.
  • Authorship & contributorship: disputes about who qualifies as an author or order of authors.
  • Ethics oversight: missing approvals, consent or registrations where these are 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 tips

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 final decisions.

Key editor tasks

  • Regularly check your “New submissions” or “Awaiting assignment” queues.
  • Maintain a diverse, up-to-date reviewer pool with accurate expertise tags and contact details.
  • Use system reminders judiciously to follow up overdue reviews.
  • Record decisions and required revisions clearly in the system, mirroring your decision letter.
  • Ensure that final accepted versions meet journal formatting and policy requirements before transferring to 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 & digital tools as an editor

Editors may use carefully selected tools to support their work (e.g. to manage workload or check language clarity), but human judgement and accountability must remain central.

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

Ongoing training, feedback & development

Building strong editorial practice

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

Learning & reflection

  • Review your decision patterns and turnaround times periodically to identify bottlenecks.
  • Discuss challenging or borderline cases within the editorial team (maintaining confidentiality).
  • Participate in IUMS or external workshops on peer review, ethics and open science.
  • Stay up to date with international guidance (COPE, ICMJE, EQUATOR and others).
Feedback culture: Invite constructive feedback from authors, reviewers and fellow editors about how the journal’s 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’s editorial office are listed on the journal websites and on the central About / Contact page.