Editor Guidelines
Comprehensive Guide for IJCV Editorial Board Members
Editorial Excellence: These guidelines ensure consistent, high-quality editorial decisions that maintain IJCV's reputation for scientific rigor and integrity in coronavirus research publication.
COPE Guidelines for Editors
All IJCV editors must strictly adhere to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for journal editors. This includes maintaining confidentiality, ensuring fair and unbiased peer review, handling conflicts of interest appropriately, and addressing misconduct allegations according to established COPE flowcharts and best practices.
Editorial Responsibilities
Core Duties
- Manuscript Evaluation: Assess scientific merit, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts
- Reviewer Selection: Identify and invite qualified peer reviewers with relevant expertise
- Editorial Decisions: Make informed recommendations based on peer review and scientific quality
- Author Communication: Provide clear, constructive feedback to authors
- Quality Assurance: Ensure adherence to publication standards and ethical guidelines
- Journal Development: Contribute to journal growth and strategic planning
Time Commitment: Editors are expected to handle 2-4 manuscripts per month, with each manuscript requiring approximately 1-2 hours of evaluation time.
Manuscript Evaluation Process
Initial Assessment
Evaluate manuscript scope, quality, and fit with journal aims within 3-5 business days.
Reviewer Selection
Identify and invite 2-3 qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.
Review Coordination
Monitor review progress and follow up with reviewers to ensure timely completion.
Editorial Decision
Make informed decision based on reviews and provide detailed feedback to authors.
Decision Categories
Accept
Manuscript meets publication standards with minimal or no revisions required.
- High scientific quality and significance
- Clear methodology and valid conclusions
- Appropriate for journal scope
- Minor editorial corrections only
Minor Revision
Manuscript has merit but requires specific improvements before acceptance.
- Good scientific foundation
- Addressable methodological concerns
- Clarification needed in presentation
- Additional analysis or discussion required
Major Revision
Significant issues that require substantial revision and re-review.
- Fundamental methodological concerns
- Insufficient data or analysis
- Major presentation issues
- Requires additional experiments
Reject
Manuscript does not meet publication standards or journal scope.
- Fundamental scientific flaws
- Outside journal scope
- Insufficient novelty or significance
- Ethical concerns
Reviewer Selection Guidelines
Ideal Reviewer Characteristics
- Subject Expertise: Relevant knowledge in the manuscript's research area
- Publication Record: Active research with recent publications in the field
- No Conflicts: Absence of personal, professional, or financial conflicts
- Geographic Diversity: International representation when possible
- Career Stage Mix: Balance of senior and emerging researchers
- Reliability: History of timely, thorough reviews
Conflict of Interest: Avoid reviewers who are collaborators, competitors, or have personal relationships with authors. When in doubt, consult the Editor-in-Chief.
Ethical Guidelines
Confidentiality
Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content and review processes. Do not share or discuss manuscripts outside the editorial process.
Impartiality
Evaluate manuscripts based solely on scientific merit, regardless of author identity, institution, or nationality.
Transparency
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recuse yourself from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist.
Timeliness
Complete editorial tasks within specified timeframes and communicate promptly about any delays or issues.
Communication Guidelines
Author Communication
- Professional Tone: Maintain respectful, constructive communication
- Clear Feedback: Provide specific, actionable recommendations
- Balanced Perspective: Acknowledge strengths while addressing weaknesses
- Educational Approach: Help authors improve their work and writing
- Timely Response: Respond to author queries within 48-72 hours
Reviewer Communication
- Clear Instructions: Provide specific guidance on review expectations
- Reasonable Deadlines: Allow 2-3 weeks for review completion
- Follow-up: Send reminders 3-5 days before deadline
- Appreciation: Acknowledge reviewer contributions and expertise
- Feedback: Provide summary of editorial decision to reviewers
Editorial Support Resources
Editorial Team Support
Dedicated editorial staff available for manuscript management, reviewer coordination, and administrative assistance.
Technology Platform
User-friendly editorial management system with mobile access, automated workflows, and comprehensive tracking.
Training Resources
Comprehensive orientation materials, best practice guides, and ongoing professional development opportunities.
Peer Consultation
Access to fellow editors for advice on difficult decisions and editorial challenges.
Performance Expectations
Key Performance Indicators
- Response Time: Initial assessment within 3-5 business days
- Review Completion: 90% of reviews completed within target timeframes
- Decision Quality: Consistent, well-reasoned editorial decisions
- Author Satisfaction: Positive feedback on editorial communication
- Reviewer Recruitment: Successful identification of qualified reviewers
- Professional Development: Participation in training and development activities
Contact Information
For questions about editorial procedures, support, or COPE guidelines:
Email: [email protected]
Editorial support and technical assistance
Excellence in Editorial Service
Your editorial expertise and dedication ensure IJCV maintains the highest standards of scientific publishing in coronavirus research.
Contact: For inquiries, please email [email protected]
