eCurater’s Editorial board is a distinctive team of expert individuals committed to its mission of producing multidisciplinary scientific information of universal relevance. Editors are responsible to administer peer review process, conduct content quality checks, make recommendations on acceptance or rejection of a paper to ensure top rated publications. eCurater has set the following directives for editors based on COPE Code of Conduct. Editors are thus recommended to adhere to the set guidelines to ensure the publication of legitimate manuscripts.
Based on the peer review reports, editors at eCurater should evaluate the quality of manuscript and make sure that it satisfies the objectives of the journal. The list below provides the roles of an editor.
As the final decision of accepting or rejecting a manuscript solely relies on the editors, the following guidelines will assist the editors in their decision-making process. Follow the below mentioned step-by-step guide to handling a manuscript to streamline the process of decision making.
At eCurater, Editors will be allotted with manuscripts based on their area of expertise and potentiality. An editor should accept to edit an assigned manuscript only if he is comfortable with the topic of study. If the paper is far from the editor’s field of study, he can recommend another editor from the board to shoulder the task. Also, the editors should mention any suspected conflict of interest and can decline handling the manuscript in the very initial stage.
In order to ensure non influential scientific judgement, editor should be aware of the factors that seed the conflicts of interest while handling a manuscript. The following points will highlight the scenarios that germinate potential conflicts:
Once the conflicts of interest are assessed and if the editor finds none, then the next step is to assess if the paper is suitable for publication. Editors should quickly review the title and abstract to gauge if the paper suits the scientific scope of the journal. In case of any discrepancies, the paper can be rejected outright. In other case, the paper can be sent for the streamlined peer-review process.
Editors should select at least two impartial, unbiased, qualified, experienced, professional individuals to review the manuscript. If authors have specified any referees not be involved in the process, do avoid involving them in the review process. Editors should consider potential conflicts while choosing the reviewers. Based on the publication history of the reviewer, an editor can assess the experience and expertise of the reviewer. Editors can choose post- doctoral researchers or professors or industry experts as the reviewers. Editors can choose the reviewers from their broad academic network or they can take the aid of the references mentioned in the manuscript or they can find the reviewers on the platforms that provide abstracting and indexing services. During the process of reviewer recruitment, however, confidentiality of manuscript information should be strictly maintained.
After receiving the reviewers’ reports, the editor must evaluate them as each of the reviewers will make any one of the following recommendations:
If there is no error sighted in the manuscript, then the editor can choose “Publish Unaltered”. If the manuscript can be made fit for publication after making a few minor changes to it, then editors can invite authors to revise the manuscript and resubmit the same. In such a case, editors have to choose “Consider after Minor Changes”. Also, if a reviewer’s hand is to be involved in making changes to the manuscript and after necessary modifications by the reviewer along with author’s consent, if a manuscript can be published, then editors have to use “Consider after Major Changes”. If all or most of the reviewers suggest a rejection of the manuscript, then the paper should be rejected outright. If the manuscript is not technically sound and if there are issues concerning the validity and logical analysis of the question under study, then it can result in rejection of the paper.
Right from the point of receiving the manuscript until its publication, editors should not communicate the manuscript’s information to anyone other than the author, reviewer, the Editor-in-chief and the publisher. No peer discussion should be made on these lines. Editors should not communicate the information regarding the reviewers to the authors. eCurater follows a review procedure wherein the reviewers know the author’s identity, but the authors do not know who the reviewer is. So, editors should maintain the anonymity of the reviewers. Also, if the editor comes across any issues concerning publication ethics and misconduct that include plagiarism, redundancy, authorship disputes, manipulation of data and figures, they should flag them immediately to the publisher.
eCurater is a member of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and thus adheres to the COPE Guidelines. Any suspected case of misconduct and unethical steps in the entire process from submission to publication will be handled using COPE Flow Charts. For detailed guidelines on publication ethics, please visit our Publication Ethics page
One-time submissions which focus on a specific contemporary topic that the journal occasionally invites to submit are termed as Special Issues. Editorial team can also submit proposals for Special Issues. For more information, visit our Special Issues page . Editors at eCurater are consulted to verify if a particular topic of a Special Issue falls within the scientific scope of the journal. Editors are asked to assess the contemporary relevance of the topic, its suitability to the journal to further proceed with its call. A team of 2-4 Guest Editors led by one Lead Guest Editor evaluates the Special Issues. Editorial team at eCurater should verify if the Guest Editors possess ample proficiency in handling the submissions. Editors at eCurater should ensure zero conflicts of interest within the Guest Editors’ team.