Editor Guidelines

1. Introduction

Editors play a central role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, fairness, and reputation of journals published by TIMEWELL PRESS LIMITED.

These guidelines outline the responsibilities and expected conduct of Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Academic Editors, Section Editors, and Guest Editors involved in manuscript evaluation and editorial decision-making.

Editors are expected to act independently, impartially, confidentially, and in accordance with recognised principles of publication ethics.

2. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, efficiently, and according to the academic standards and editorial policies of the journal.

Editors should:

• Assess whether submissions fall within the journal’s aims and scope.
• Evaluate the originality, academic relevance, methodological quality, and overall suitability of manuscripts.
• Select qualified and independent peer reviewers.
• Manage the peer-review process objectively and efficiently.
• Make evidence-based editorial recommendations or decisions.
• Ensure that ethical, legal, and publication requirements are followed.
• Protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and peer-review materials.
• Identify and manage actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
• Communicate with authors and reviewers professionally and respectfully.
• Support the correction of the scholarly record where necessary.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by authors’ nationality, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, political beliefs, religious beliefs, personal relationships, or commercial interests.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

Before sending a manuscript for external peer review, the assigned editor should conduct an initial assessment.

The editor should determine whether the manuscript:

• Fits the journal’s aims and scope.
• Addresses a relevant academic or professional issue.
• Demonstrates sufficient originality and potential contribution.
• Meets basic standards of academic writing and organisation.
• Uses an appropriate and sufficiently rigorous research design.
• Includes adequate ethical approval and consent statements, where applicable.
• Provides appropriate declarations regarding funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, and author contributions.
• Complies with the journal’s submission and formatting requirements.
• Does not show obvious evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, or other misconduct.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, methodologically inadequate, ethically problematic, or insufficiently developed may be rejected without external peer review.

Desk-rejection decisions should be based on clear academic and editorial grounds.

4. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Editors should select reviewers who have appropriate expertise in the subject area, methodology, or theoretical framework of the manuscript.

Reviewers should be selected based on:

• Relevant academic qualifications and publication experience.
• Expertise related to the manuscript topic.
• Ability to provide an objective and constructive review.
• Absence of significant conflicts of interest.
• Previous reliability and quality of peer-review reports.
• Ability to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Editors should normally avoid selecting reviewers who:

• Work at the same institution as any of the authors.
• Have recently co-authored publications with the authors.
• Have close personal, professional, supervisory, or financial relationships with the authors.
• Have a direct competitive interest in the research.
• May be unable to provide an independent evaluation.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but the editor is not required to invite them. Editors should independently verify the reviewer’s identity, affiliation, expertise, and contact details.

Editors should not rely exclusively on reviewers suggested by the authors.

5. Peer-Review Management

The journal may use double-blind, single-blind, or another approved peer-review model, depending on the journal’s editorial policy.

Editors should ensure that:

• Manuscripts are sent to an appropriate number of independent reviewers.
• Reviewers receive clear instructions and evaluation criteria.
• Review deadlines are reasonable.
• Reviewer comments are relevant, professional, and constructive.
• Confidential or inappropriate comments are not transmitted to authors.
• Personal attacks, discriminatory language, or unsupported accusations are removed or addressed.
• Conflicting reviewer recommendations are carefully evaluated.
• Additional reviewers are invited where the available reports are insufficient or substantially inconsistent.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor remains responsible for evaluating the manuscript and making or recommending the final decision.

Editors should not make decisions based solely on the number of positive or negative reviewer recommendations.

6. Editorial Decisions

Possible editorial decisions may include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Resubmit for Review
• Reject

Editorial decisions should be based on:

• Originality and significance.
• Relevance to the journal.
• Theoretical or practical contribution.
• Methodological quality.
• Validity and reliability of the findings.
• Ethical compliance.
• Clarity and coherence of presentation.
• Responses to reviewer and editor comments.

Decision letters should clearly explain the reasons for the decision and provide authors with sufficient guidance for revision where appropriate.

Editors should distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

A manuscript should not be accepted until the editor is satisfied that all major academic, methodological, ethical, and reporting concerns have been adequately addressed.

7. Revised Manuscripts

When evaluating a revised manuscript, editors should review:

• The revised manuscript.
• The authors’ point-by-point response to reviewers.
• Changes made in response to editorial comments.
• Any issues that remain unresolved.
• Any new information, analyses, or ethical disclosures added during revision.

Editors should determine whether the authors have responded adequately and professionally to each substantive concern.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers when:

• Major methodological or theoretical changes have been made.
• Specialist evaluation is still required.
• Reviewers requested to examine the revision.
• The editor requires additional independent assessment.

Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the editor when the changes are straightforward and do not require further expert review.

8. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related materials must be treated as confidential.

Editors must not:

• Share manuscripts with unauthorised individuals.
• Discuss submissions outside the editorial and peer-review process.
• Use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage.
• Reveal reviewer identities when the journal uses anonymous review.
• Disclose editorial discussions without authorisation.
• Retain or distribute manuscript files for purposes unrelated to editorial evaluation.

Where consultation with another editor or specialist is necessary, the manuscript should be shared only with individuals who agree to maintain confidentiality.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest involving a manuscript.

A conflict of interest may arise from:

• Recent collaboration with an author.
• Employment at the same institution.
• Supervisory or student relationships.
• Personal or family relationships.
• Financial interests.
• Academic competition.
• Strong personal or professional disagreements.
• Direct involvement in the research.
• Membership of the same research project or funding application.

Editors with a significant conflict of interest must recuse themselves from handling the manuscript.

The manuscript should then be reassigned to an independent editor.

Editors must not make decisions on manuscripts that they have authored or co-authored. Such submissions must be handled independently and without involvement from the submitting editor.

10. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must be based on academic merit and journal policy.

Editors should not allow decisions to be influenced by:

• Commercial considerations.
• Advertising relationships.
• Sponsorship arrangements.
• Personal preferences.
• Pressure from authors, institutions, reviewers, publishers, or third parties.
• The likelihood that an article will attract citations or publicity.

The publisher supports editorial independence and does not interfere with individual editorial decisions that have been made in accordance with journal policy and publication ethics.

11. Research Ethics

Editors should confirm that manuscripts involving human participants, animals, personal data, or sensitive materials comply with appropriate ethical standards.

Where applicable, manuscripts should include:

• Name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review board.
• Ethical approval number.
• Informed consent statement.
• Participant confidentiality protections.
• Consent for publication.
• Animal welfare approval.
• Registration information for clinical trials or systematic review protocols.
• Data protection procedures.

Editors may request additional ethical documentation when the information provided is incomplete or unclear.

A manuscript should not proceed to publication when serious ethical concerns remain unresolved.

12. Publication Misconduct

Editors should remain alert to possible publication misconduct, including:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism or text recycling.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Simultaneous submission.
• Data fabrication.
• Data falsification.
• Image manipulation.
• Citation manipulation.
• Authorship disputes.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Peer-review manipulation.
• Use of false reviewer identities.
• Unethical research practices.
• Misrepresentation of ethical approval.
• Undisclosed use of generative artificial intelligence.
• Manipulation of references, data, or research materials.

Suspected misconduct should be investigated fairly, confidentially, and consistently.

Editors should not make accusations without sufficient evidence. Authors should normally be given an opportunity to explain or respond to concerns.

Depending on the seriousness of the issue, the journal may:

• Request clarification or supporting documents.
• Request raw data or original files.
• Suspend editorial evaluation.
• Reject the manuscript.
• Contact the authors’ institution.
• Issue a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other post-publication notice.
• Restrict future submissions in serious cases.

13. Authorship and Contributor Issues

Editors should ensure that authorship is based on substantial academic contribution and that all listed authors have approved the submission.

Editors should examine concerns involving:

• Guest authorship.
• Gift authorship.
• Ghost authorship.
• Omission of legitimate contributors.
• Unauthorised changes to authorship.
• Disputes over author order.
• Failure to disclose contributor roles.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be supported by a written explanation and agreement from all affected authors.

The journal may require an author contribution statement using a recognised contributor-role framework.

Editors should not personally adjudicate complex authorship disputes when the matter requires institutional investigation.

14. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Editors should evaluate whether authors have appropriately disclosed the use of generative artificial intelligence or AI-assisted tools.

AI tools must not be listed as authors, editors, or reviewers because they cannot accept responsibility for academic integrity or editorial decisions.

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or identifying information into publicly accessible generative AI systems unless the journal has explicitly approved a secure and compliant system.

Editors remain fully responsible for all editorial evaluations, communications, and decisions.

AI-generated summaries, evaluations, or recommendations must not replace independent academic judgment.

15. Data and Reporting Standards

Editors should encourage transparent and complete reporting.

Where relevant, authors may be required to provide:

• Data availability statements.
• Research instruments.
• Supplementary materials.
• Analytical code.
• Reporting checklists.
• Trial registration details.
• Protocol registration details.
• Raw or anonymised data.
• Explanations of data restrictions.

Editors should assess whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the reported evidence.

Editors should not require authors to cite particular articles solely to increase citations to the journal, editor, or reviewer.

Any citation recommendation must be academically relevant and justified.

16. Reviewer Conduct and Report Quality

Editors should assess the quality and appropriateness of peer-review reports.

A suitable review report should:

• Evaluate the manuscript objectively.
• Identify major strengths and weaknesses.
• Address the research question, methods, results, interpretation, and contribution.
• Provide specific and constructive recommendations.
• Distinguish major concerns from minor corrections.
• Avoid personal criticism.
• Maintain a professional and respectful tone.
• Avoid coercive citation requests.
• Avoid requesting unnecessary changes that do not improve the manuscript.

Editors may disregard, edit, or return reviewer comments that are inappropriate, discriminatory, irrelevant, hostile, or unethical.

Repeated submission of poor-quality or unprofessional reviews may result in removal from the reviewer database.

17. Timeliness

Editors should manage manuscripts efficiently and avoid unnecessary delay.

Editors are expected to:

• Conduct initial assessments promptly.
• Invite reviewers without unreasonable delay.
• Monitor overdue reviews.
• Send reminders where appropriate.
• Replace reviewers who do not respond.
• make decisions once sufficient evidence is available.
• Respond to reasonable author enquiries.
• Inform the editorial office if they are temporarily unable to handle assigned manuscripts.

Speed should not take priority over the quality, fairness, or integrity of the review process.

18. Communication with Authors

Editors should communicate decisions and requests clearly, respectfully, and professionally.

Editorial correspondence should:

• Explain the basis of the decision.
• Summarise the main concerns.
• Avoid insulting, dismissive, or discriminatory language.
• Clearly state revision requirements.
• Provide realistic deadlines.
• Distinguish mandatory changes from recommendations.
• Avoid making promises of acceptance before all requirements are met.

Editors should not enter into hostile or unproductive correspondence.

Disagreements should be handled professionally and referred to the Editor-in-Chief or publisher when necessary.

19. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that:

• A significant factual or methodological error affected the decision.
• Reviewer comments were seriously inappropriate or irrelevant.
• A conflict of interest influenced the process.
• The journal’s procedures were not followed.
• Important information was misunderstood.

Appeals must normally include a detailed academic justification.

Editors should assess appeals objectively. The original decision should not be reversed solely because an author disagrees with it.

Where appropriate, an appeal may be evaluated by an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, ethics, discrimination, or procedural fairness should be handled according to the journal’s complaints and appeals policy.

20. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Issues

Editors share responsibility for maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published scholarly record.

When a significant concern is raised after publication, editors should assess whether the article requires:

• A minor correction.
• A formal correction notice.
• An addendum.
• An expression of concern.
• A retraction.
• Removal in exceptional legal or safety circumstances.

Editors should evaluate post-publication concerns even when they are raised by readers, reviewers, institutions, or anonymous individuals.

Corrections and retractions should be clearly linked to the original article and should explain the reason for the action.

21. Special Issues and Guest Editors

Guest Editors are subject to the same ethical and editorial standards as permanent editors.

Guest Editors should:

• Develop a clearly defined and academically relevant special-issue scope.
• Avoid conflicts of interest.
• Select independent reviewers.
• Maintain confidentiality.
• Apply the same review standards used for regular submissions.
• Avoid preferential treatment of invited authors.
• Refrain from handling their own manuscripts.
• Report suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief.
• Ensure that all accepted papers meet the journal’s quality standards.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final oversight of special issues and may reject or reassign manuscripts when editorial or ethical concerns arise.

A special issue should not be accepted or published solely to increase publication volume.

22. Editor-Authored Submissions

Editors may submit manuscripts to the journal, provided that the submission is handled independently.

For editor-authored submissions:

• The submitting editor must not participate in reviewer selection.
• The submitting editor must not access confidential peer-review discussions.
• The manuscript must be assigned to an independent editor.
• The same review and acceptance standards must be applied.
• The article should include an editorial disclosure where appropriate.

The purpose of these safeguards is to ensure that editor-authored articles receive no preferential treatment.

23. Training and Performance

Editors are expected to remain familiar with:

• The journal’s aims and scope.
• Author guidelines.
• Reviewer guidelines.
• Publication ethics policies.
• Peer-review procedures.
• Research reporting standards.
• Data and AI policies.
• Correction and retraction procedures.

The publisher or Editor-in-Chief may periodically review editorial performance based on:

• Quality of editorial decisions.
• Timeliness.
• Communication standards.
• Reviewer selection.
• Ethical compliance.
• Contribution to journal development.
• Participation in editorial meetings and training.

Editors who repeatedly fail to meet expected standards may have their responsibilities reviewed or discontinued.

24. Editorial Record Keeping

Editors should ensure that significant editorial actions and decisions are documented within the journal’s submission system.

Records should include:

• Reviewer invitations.
• Reviewer reports.
• Editorial assessments.
• Conflict-of-interest disclosures.
• Decision letters.
• Author responses.
• Ethical concerns.
• Appeals and complaints.
• Post-publication actions.

Editorial decisions should not be conducted entirely through private communication outside the journal’s official system unless necessary, and relevant correspondence should be retained.

25. Acceptance of Editorial Appointment

By accepting an editorial appointment, an editor agrees to:

• Act in the best interests of the journal and scholarly community.
• Follow the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.
• Maintain confidentiality.
• Disclose conflicts of interest.
• Exercise independent academic judgment.
• Complete assigned work responsibly and promptly.
• Support fair and inclusive editorial practices.
• Protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
• Avoid using the editorial position for personal, financial, or academic advantage.

26. Contact

Editors who require guidance regarding a manuscript, ethical concern, conflict of interest, appeal, complaint, or technical issue should contact the journal’s editorial office.

Editorial Office Email: editorial.office@timewellpress.com

When contacting the editorial office, please include:

• Journal title
• Manuscript reference number
• Manuscript title
• A brief description of the issue
• Any relevant supporting information