PÕ¾ÊÓƵ

The role of an Editor-in-Chief is varied, but their core purpose is to be a champion for their discipline and a custodian of the scientific record in order to ensure the success of the journal for their community.

Overview of the editor-in-chief role

An editor-in-chief ensures that:

1. Their journal meets the needs of their research community.
2. Their journal provides a route for scientific discussion and debate as well as the dissemination of sound primary research.
3. All of the content in the journal is scientifically valid and fits the aims and scope of their journal.
4. The peer review system is managed and overseen efficiently and with integrity.
5. Their journal adheres overall to the high standards expected from a journal published by PÕ¾ÊÓƵ.

One way in which Editors-in-Chief do this is to assess manuscripts for their suitability for peer review, select suitable peer reviewers and make editorial decisions based on peer review reports. Sometimes this is done single-handedly, other times with a team of handling editors or Editorial Board Members.

However, there is much, much more. The Editor-in-Chief role requires a unique set of skills and expertise in its own right, and a day in the life of an Editor-in-Chief might include activities as varied as:

• selecting Editorial Board Members for their journal,
• keeping their Editorial Board engaged with their journal,
• deciding whether to publish a manuscript in the face of conflicting peer review reports,
• making decisions about manuscripts on controversial topics,
• investigating cases of suspected research misconduct.

The idea for a new journal might come as a proposal from the scientific community itself as a result of researchers struggling to find a suitable home in which to publish their research. Sometimes the Publisher may identify a new or expanding field which is in need of a dedicated journal. 

Steps for the launch

Before a journal can launch there is much work to be done, and the Editor-in-Chief will work in collaboration with the Publisher to prepare and shape the new journal.

The Publisher may require advice and input from the Editor-in-Chief on:

• What the title of the new journal should be
• What the ethos, aims and scope of the journal should be
• Potential candidates for the Editorial Board and handling editors
• Setting up the peer review policies and procedures
• Putting a commissioning plan in place to ensure a pipeline of articles
• A promotion plan for the journal, once it is accepting submissions

The Editor-in-Chief aims to ensure that all articles their journal publishes meet agreed editorial, ethical and best practice standards and are scientifically valid. Each Editor or Editorial Board Member in handling a manuscript also then takes responsibility for ensuring the quality of manuscripts which are accepted and protecting the integrity of the scientific record. 

Before peer review

Before peer review, the Editor should ask themselves:

1. Is the manuscript within your journal’s scope and of sufficient interest? 
   If it is not, but appears to be otherwise scientifically valid, the Editor can offer the authors a transfer to another more suitable journal via the PÕ¾ÊÓƵ transfer service. For more information please speak to your Publisher contact or read about our .
2. Does the manuscript appear to be sound overall? 
   For example, are the methods appropriate to answer the research question, and do the conclusions appear to be supported by the data? If the manuscript contains fundamental flaws, the Editor can reject the submission at this stage, providing comments to the author to explain the decision. 
3. Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s editorial policies? All manuscripts must adhere to PÕ¾ÊÓƵ’s editorial policies. Editors should be familiar with these and any additional editorial policies specific to their journal. This aspect of the initial assessment of a manuscript can sometimes be the most challenging, and most interesting, part of the whole manuscript handling process.
4. Are there language concerns?
   If a manuscript requires copy editing to improve the quality or clarity of the language used, the Editor can recommend a professional editing service such as those provided by our affiliates e or .

If a manuscript fails to pass these initial questions or is deemed to be obviously flawed, or below the interest level of the journal, the Editor may reject the manuscript at this stage without sending it for peer review.

During peer review

We recommend that the Editor make a decision based on the advice of two independent reviewers. To give an informed and unbiased opinion on a manuscript, reviewers should be well qualified, with a significant and steady publication record, and an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter and methodology. Some manuscripts may require additional independent reviewers, particularly if multi-disciplinary or if they require the specialized skills of a statistician.

Criteria for a suitable reviewer include:

• Reviewers must be experienced in the subject area or methodology of the submitted manuscript
• Ideally reviewers will have an active, consistent, and recent publication record
• Their publications should be on topic to the submitted manuscript
• Reviewers should be ‘independent’ of one another i.e. not both work at the same institution and should also be independent of the Editor
• Finally, there should be no obvious bias or conflict of interest

Avenues for identifying peer reviewers include:

• Use of the PÕ¾ÊÓƵ Reviewer Finder Tool
• Investigate the reference list of the manuscript
• Make use of online tools, such as PubMed or Google Scholar
• Check suggestions made by candidates who have declined to review
• Consider authors of articles published in the journal on similar topics
• Approach invited speakers of meetings
• Identify potential reviewers on your Editorial Board
• Check Editorial Board lists from other journals for inspiration

PÕ¾ÊÓƵ is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion and we strive for diverse demographic representation of peer reviewers. Editors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other groups when inviting peer reviewers. Discover our best practice guidance for the recruitment of peer reviewers .

After peer review

Once the reviews have been submitted, the Editor should then read the comments carefully and interpret them in view of the journal’s editorial criteria, in order to reach an informed decision. The role of the Editor is to adjudicate over the review process and make a final judgement on whether:

• The manuscript adheres to the ethos, editorial standards and scope of the journal
• Further experiments or changes suggested by the reviewers are essential
• The conclusions need to be toned down to accurately reflect the findings

What to consider when making a decision after review:

• Consider the specific arguments made by the reviewers and reach an editorial decision rather than relying on their recommended decision type
• If the reviewers disagree, could this be because they have differing areas of expertise and perspectives? 
• Have the reviewers made recommendations beyond the scope of the study or that go against editorial policy?
• Are the reviewer comments in line with the ethos, editorial standards and scope of the journal?

Decision Types:

There are variations in terminology for the decision types used by different journals and imprints, but these will equate broadly to the following categories:

• Accept: This option is usually used at the end of the peer review and revision process to accept a manuscript for publication and move it into the production workflow.
• Revise: Editors should use this option if the manuscript is likely to be acceptable for publication after some changes and modifications. It is important that the Editor provides guidance noting particular areas to focus on and explaining reviewer comments further if necessary.
• Reject and transfer: With this option, the authors are offered consideration in another PÕ¾ÊÓƵ journal if the manuscript is not in scope or does not meet the interest threshold for a journal. 
• Reject without inviting resubmission or transfer: This option is usually used for manuscripts that contain fundamental flaws and are not acceptable for publication in any journal. For all reject decisions, it is important to provide authors with the reasons for rejection and why their work is not suitable for the journal.