For Editors

Judge the work, not its origin

Assess a manuscript on its science and its reporting, without regard to the authors' nationality, institution, seniority, funding or previous publication record.

Independence from commercial considerations

Decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, and editorial or reviewer roles.

An editor is never told what a manuscript's authors have paid, whether they hold a membership, or what an acceptance would be worth. If anyone raises such a consideration with you, refer it to the Editor-in-Chief.

Editing is a role, not a standing

Serving as an editor confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of your own submissions.

When to recuse

Decline the assignment where you are an author, where you have collaborated with an author recently, share an institution with one, have a financial interest in the outcome, or hold any other relationship a reader could reasonably think had influenced you.

Your own submissions

An editor's own manuscript is handled by another editor, independently, and the submitting editor sees nothing of its handling.

How to recuse

Tell the editorial office rather than the authors, and do so promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned.

Expertise

Choose reviewers who can judge the specific claim: a kineticist for a kinetic argument, a structural biologist for a structural one, a process scientist where the claim concerns application. An enzyme paper often needs two different kinds of reader.

Independence

Avoid recent co-authors, colleagues at the authors' institution and anyone with a competing interest in the outcome.

Author suggestions

Authors may suggest reviewers, or ask that particular people be avoided. Consider both; the selection is yours.

Blinding

Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.

When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.

That means checking the manuscript file itself, not only the submission record, before it is sent out.

Reports inform the decision; they are not a vote

Weigh each report by the reasoning it gives. A well-argued minority report can outweigh two brief ones, and where reviewers disagree it is the editor's job to read the science and say why one reading is better supported.

Say what would change the answer

A decision letter should leave the authors knowing what is being asked of them: which points are essential, which are suggestions, and what evidence would settle a disputed claim.

Moderate the reports you pass on

Remove discourteous or personal remarks from a review before sending it, and do not pass on a recommendation you are not willing to stand behind.

Evidence and the strength of a claim

Judge whether the evidence supports the claim actually made. A mechanistic conclusion needs mechanistic evidence; an applied or clinical claim needs the evidence that claim requires. Subject eligibility and evidential strength are separate questions.

Raising a concern

Suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation or duplicate submission goes to the editorial office. Do not put the allegation to the authors yourself, and do not decide the case alone.

How it is investigated

Allegations are investigated following the COPE flowcharts, the corresponding author is given the opportunity to respond, and the authors' institution is informed where the case warrants it.

After publication

The record is amended by adding to it: a correction, a retraction notice, or an expression of concern while a matter is unresolved. The full procedure is in Editorial Policies.