Policy Guidelines for Spread Corporation’s
Journals of Education & Recreation**
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Journal Editor and the Review process
B. Foundation of Fair Editorial Decisions
C. Editorial Independence
D. Editor & Conflict of Interest
E. Editorial Decision Making and Communication with Authors.
F. Dealing with Rejected Manuscripts that are Resubmitted by Authors.
G. Reviewers/Editorial Board Members’ Responsibilities
A. Journal Editor and the Review Process
1.The editor sees each manuscript through the evaluation process; from pre-review or screening to full double blind review. When necessary and feasible, the editor would engage external reviewers, again in a blinded condition.
2.The editor, and not the reviewer, makes the final decision to accept or reject a submission. This is without prejudice to the fact that he/she must uphold the integrity of the review process as a thorough scholarly one.
3.For the peer review process, the editor may engage one, two, or three persons to review a manuscript, guided by a number of factors, including: whether a sufficient pool of reviewers is available; whether a particular reviewer is a noted expert whose single opinion is sufficient to base decision on; and whether the manuscript submitted has a quality that requires that more than one or two reviewers are needed for a fair decision.
4.The editor may identify potential reviewers for a manuscript on the basis of personal knowledge of the topic or from among the authors of references in the manuscript, or on the basis of author suggestion.
5.The editor must ensure that manuscripts are masked: that the identity of the authors is not known to the reviewers nor reviewers’ identity known to authors during the review process.
6.The editor is responsible for keeping track of reviewers, and taking steps to make sure reviews are completed in a timely manner. The editor may also wish to include in the reviewer database judgments regarding the promptness and quality of reviewers.
7.If a reviewer does not complete a review on a timely basis, the editor will proceed with evaluation of the manuscript. S/he can make a decision to accept or reject the manuscript based on the comments and recommendations of another reviewer(s) or his/her own evaluation of the manuscript, or by seeking additional review.
8.Should any reason arise to delay the review of a manuscript beyond the advertised period, the editor will advise the author promptly.
9.Revised manuscripts will be evaluated by editors to determine if the revisions are satisfactory, and will not be automatically returned to reviewers. An exception might be when the revised manuscript includes changes that may have introduced important new shortcomings about which the editor needs advice from one or more of the original reviewers.
10.Revised manuscripts will not be sent to new reviewers.
B. Foundation of Fair Editorial Decisions
11.Editorial decisions will not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish will not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.
12.Decisions to edit and publish manuscripts will be based on characteristics of the manuscripts themselves and how they relate to the journal's purposes and readers. Among these characteristics are importance of the topic, originality, methodological strength, clarity and completeness of written expression, and potential interest to readers. Editors will also take into account whether studies are ethical and whether their publication might cause harm to readers or to the public interest.
C. Editorial Independence
13.The editor’s primary responsibilities are to inform and educate readers, with attention to the accuracy and importance of journal articles, and to protect and strengthen the integrity and quality of this journal and its intellectual and scholarly processes.
14.The Managing Editor and Spread Corporation Board of Directors support the core values and objectives of Spread Corporation and are ultimately responsible for all aspects of producing the journal, including staffing, budget, and online publication.
15.The Editor has full authority over the editorial content of the journal. The Managing Editor will not interfere in the evaluation, selection, or editing of individual articles, either directly or by creating an environment in which editorial decisions are strongly influenced.
16.However, the limits of editorial freedom would be considered breached under certain conditions. These conditions include if the editor falls into a pattern of taking strong, consistent, one-sided positions against the core values and policies of Spread Corporation and of the specific journal over which he/she has oversight; if the editor shows a pattern of bad editorial decisions; if the editor disagrees with the long-term editorial direction of the journal; or if the editor is convicted of criminal acts or ethical lapses that are incompatible with a position of trust.
17.Another condition under which either side may end their contract would be if for whatever reason, Spread Corporation and the editor find they are unable to work together in a spirit of mutual trust and collaboration.
18.The Editor reports to the Managing Editor who takes over post review phase of manuscripts to effect production processes.
D. Editor & Conflict of Interest
19.It is the responsibility of the editor to not make decisions regarding manuscripts about which s/he may have a conflict of interest. An example would be when manuscripts are submitted by members of the editor’s own institution or people who have been collaborators of the editor in the past. In this instance, the manuscript will have to be sent to the Managing Editor, who in turn may hand it over to an outsider of the journal’s editorial office who is given full power to select reviewers and make decisions regarding acceptance or rejection of the said submission.
20.In the unlikely case that the editor chooses to make a submission, other than an editorial, to his/her own journal, the editorial review process and decision on such manuscript must be handed over to the Managing Editor or to another third party that the latter may delegate to the task.
21.The editor must ensure that s/he has no personal, professional or financial involvement in any of the issues that comes under his/her judgment.
E. Editorial Decision Making and Communication with Authors.
22.While the editor makes the final decisions to accept or reject a manuscript, it is to be understood that he/she has a right to discretionary consultation with associate editors or other experts outside of the editorial body, provided that such consultations are accorded status equivalent to and treated as another review report.
23.The editor will communicate decisions to manuscript authors, where necessary, providing explanations for his decision separate from and independent of the comments of reviewers.
24.If reviewers’ comments on a manuscript turn out to be contradictory, the editor must decide and tell the authors which comments to follow for revision purposes. Editors may add their own comments and suggestions for revision.
25.Where two reviewers’ reports conflict, the editor will inform reviewers of his/her decision and send them copies of the comments of other reviewers on the same manuscript.
F. Dealing with Rejected Manuscripts that are Resubmitted by Authors.
26.The editor-in-chief may choose to not engage in further correspondence on decision to not publish a submission.
27.The above is without prejudice to authors who feel strongly that the reviewers and the editor have erred in their judgment and have made mistakes that they (authors) can adequately address. In this case, a re-submission with detailed response to all the points made in the rejection letter might be justified.
28.If a paper is revised well enough that every reason given for its rejection has been taken care of, it has become a new paper and could technically go through the pre-review and review processes afresh.
G. Reviewers /Editorial Board Members’ Responsibilities
29.We select our peer reviewers on the basis of our judgment of their expertise and ability to provide high quality, constructive, and fair reviews. Critique of writing style alone is probably the least important aspect of a reviewer’s task. Reviewers are expected to be experts in the manuscript’s content area, research methods, or both.
30.Reviewers have the indispensable role of evaluating manuscripts critically but constructively and of preparing detailed comments about the research and the manuscript to help authors improve their work.
31.Reviewers also make recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of manuscripts for publication in the journal. The journal’s review instrument should be used for this purpose.
32.Reviewers who feel that a manuscript is not in their area of expertise should decline to evaluate the manuscript. This is one of a number of check off items in the form that all our reviewers fill out when they accept to evaluate a manuscript.
33.Reviewers should declare to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review, and in most instances when such conflicts exist should decline to review the manuscript to guide against biased judgment.
34.Reviewers must treat manuscripts under evaluation as confidential documents and should work to complete the reviews promptly such that authors do not suffer loss should there be a need to start a new submission process to a different journal.
35.Reviewers should not show manuscripts to anyone else without the express consent of the editor.
36.Reviewers’ comments to be sent to authors about their manuscripts should not be derogatory. It would be within the right of the editor to edit any such comment or even withhold the entire comment of the affected reviewer from the author.
37.Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration.
38.Reviewers should not communicate directly with authors or even identify themselves to authors during the review process, except by signing their reviews.
39.Reviewer may sign their comments for transmittal to authors if they wish, but this is not a requirement.
**Much of this has been adopted or adapted from the World Association of Medical Editors’ http://www.wame.org website
Journals of Education & Recreation**
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Journal Editor and the Review process
B. Foundation of Fair Editorial Decisions
C. Editorial Independence
D. Editor & Conflict of Interest
E. Editorial Decision Making and Communication with Authors.
F. Dealing with Rejected Manuscripts that are Resubmitted by Authors.
G. Reviewers/Editorial Board Members’ Responsibilities
A. Journal Editor and the Review Process
1.The editor sees each manuscript through the evaluation process; from pre-review or screening to full double blind review. When necessary and feasible, the editor would engage external reviewers, again in a blinded condition.
2.The editor, and not the reviewer, makes the final decision to accept or reject a submission. This is without prejudice to the fact that he/she must uphold the integrity of the review process as a thorough scholarly one.
3.For the peer review process, the editor may engage one, two, or three persons to review a manuscript, guided by a number of factors, including: whether a sufficient pool of reviewers is available; whether a particular reviewer is a noted expert whose single opinion is sufficient to base decision on; and whether the manuscript submitted has a quality that requires that more than one or two reviewers are needed for a fair decision.
4.The editor may identify potential reviewers for a manuscript on the basis of personal knowledge of the topic or from among the authors of references in the manuscript, or on the basis of author suggestion.
5.The editor must ensure that manuscripts are masked: that the identity of the authors is not known to the reviewers nor reviewers’ identity known to authors during the review process.
6.The editor is responsible for keeping track of reviewers, and taking steps to make sure reviews are completed in a timely manner. The editor may also wish to include in the reviewer database judgments regarding the promptness and quality of reviewers.
7.If a reviewer does not complete a review on a timely basis, the editor will proceed with evaluation of the manuscript. S/he can make a decision to accept or reject the manuscript based on the comments and recommendations of another reviewer(s) or his/her own evaluation of the manuscript, or by seeking additional review.
8.Should any reason arise to delay the review of a manuscript beyond the advertised period, the editor will advise the author promptly.
9.Revised manuscripts will be evaluated by editors to determine if the revisions are satisfactory, and will not be automatically returned to reviewers. An exception might be when the revised manuscript includes changes that may have introduced important new shortcomings about which the editor needs advice from one or more of the original reviewers.
10.Revised manuscripts will not be sent to new reviewers.
B. Foundation of Fair Editorial Decisions
11.Editorial decisions will not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish will not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.
12.Decisions to edit and publish manuscripts will be based on characteristics of the manuscripts themselves and how they relate to the journal's purposes and readers. Among these characteristics are importance of the topic, originality, methodological strength, clarity and completeness of written expression, and potential interest to readers. Editors will also take into account whether studies are ethical and whether their publication might cause harm to readers or to the public interest.
C. Editorial Independence
13.The editor’s primary responsibilities are to inform and educate readers, with attention to the accuracy and importance of journal articles, and to protect and strengthen the integrity and quality of this journal and its intellectual and scholarly processes.
14.The Managing Editor and Spread Corporation Board of Directors support the core values and objectives of Spread Corporation and are ultimately responsible for all aspects of producing the journal, including staffing, budget, and online publication.
15.The Editor has full authority over the editorial content of the journal. The Managing Editor will not interfere in the evaluation, selection, or editing of individual articles, either directly or by creating an environment in which editorial decisions are strongly influenced.
16.However, the limits of editorial freedom would be considered breached under certain conditions. These conditions include if the editor falls into a pattern of taking strong, consistent, one-sided positions against the core values and policies of Spread Corporation and of the specific journal over which he/she has oversight; if the editor shows a pattern of bad editorial decisions; if the editor disagrees with the long-term editorial direction of the journal; or if the editor is convicted of criminal acts or ethical lapses that are incompatible with a position of trust.
17.Another condition under which either side may end their contract would be if for whatever reason, Spread Corporation and the editor find they are unable to work together in a spirit of mutual trust and collaboration.
18.The Editor reports to the Managing Editor who takes over post review phase of manuscripts to effect production processes.
D. Editor & Conflict of Interest
19.It is the responsibility of the editor to not make decisions regarding manuscripts about which s/he may have a conflict of interest. An example would be when manuscripts are submitted by members of the editor’s own institution or people who have been collaborators of the editor in the past. In this instance, the manuscript will have to be sent to the Managing Editor, who in turn may hand it over to an outsider of the journal’s editorial office who is given full power to select reviewers and make decisions regarding acceptance or rejection of the said submission.
20.In the unlikely case that the editor chooses to make a submission, other than an editorial, to his/her own journal, the editorial review process and decision on such manuscript must be handed over to the Managing Editor or to another third party that the latter may delegate to the task.
21.The editor must ensure that s/he has no personal, professional or financial involvement in any of the issues that comes under his/her judgment.
E. Editorial Decision Making and Communication with Authors.
22.While the editor makes the final decisions to accept or reject a manuscript, it is to be understood that he/she has a right to discretionary consultation with associate editors or other experts outside of the editorial body, provided that such consultations are accorded status equivalent to and treated as another review report.
23.The editor will communicate decisions to manuscript authors, where necessary, providing explanations for his decision separate from and independent of the comments of reviewers.
24.If reviewers’ comments on a manuscript turn out to be contradictory, the editor must decide and tell the authors which comments to follow for revision purposes. Editors may add their own comments and suggestions for revision.
25.Where two reviewers’ reports conflict, the editor will inform reviewers of his/her decision and send them copies of the comments of other reviewers on the same manuscript.
F. Dealing with Rejected Manuscripts that are Resubmitted by Authors.
26.The editor-in-chief may choose to not engage in further correspondence on decision to not publish a submission.
27.The above is without prejudice to authors who feel strongly that the reviewers and the editor have erred in their judgment and have made mistakes that they (authors) can adequately address. In this case, a re-submission with detailed response to all the points made in the rejection letter might be justified.
28.If a paper is revised well enough that every reason given for its rejection has been taken care of, it has become a new paper and could technically go through the pre-review and review processes afresh.
G. Reviewers /Editorial Board Members’ Responsibilities
29.We select our peer reviewers on the basis of our judgment of their expertise and ability to provide high quality, constructive, and fair reviews. Critique of writing style alone is probably the least important aspect of a reviewer’s task. Reviewers are expected to be experts in the manuscript’s content area, research methods, or both.
30.Reviewers have the indispensable role of evaluating manuscripts critically but constructively and of preparing detailed comments about the research and the manuscript to help authors improve their work.
31.Reviewers also make recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of manuscripts for publication in the journal. The journal’s review instrument should be used for this purpose.
32.Reviewers who feel that a manuscript is not in their area of expertise should decline to evaluate the manuscript. This is one of a number of check off items in the form that all our reviewers fill out when they accept to evaluate a manuscript.
33.Reviewers should declare to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review, and in most instances when such conflicts exist should decline to review the manuscript to guide against biased judgment.
34.Reviewers must treat manuscripts under evaluation as confidential documents and should work to complete the reviews promptly such that authors do not suffer loss should there be a need to start a new submission process to a different journal.
35.Reviewers should not show manuscripts to anyone else without the express consent of the editor.
36.Reviewers’ comments to be sent to authors about their manuscripts should not be derogatory. It would be within the right of the editor to edit any such comment or even withhold the entire comment of the affected reviewer from the author.
37.Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration.
38.Reviewers should not communicate directly with authors or even identify themselves to authors during the review process, except by signing their reviews.
39.Reviewer may sign their comments for transmittal to authors if they wish, but this is not a requirement.
**Much of this has been adopted or adapted from the World Association of Medical Editors’ http://www.wame.org website
Insight into Lifelong Learning
http://www.spreadcorp.org/insight/index.html
ISSN 1916-7865
©2007-2010 Sustainable Programs for Reducing
Educational and Avocational Disadvantage
http://www.spreadcorp.org/insight/index.html
ISSN 1916-7865
©2007-2010 Sustainable Programs for Reducing
Educational and Avocational Disadvantage
Insight into Lifelong Learning