Editors Guidelines
What an editor of International Journal of Pain Management is responsible for: judging fit, choosing reviewers, protecting independence and explaining a decision.
Judging fit before judging evidence
The standard of evidence follows the claim. A mechanistic study, a measurement study and a clinical evaluation are each read against what their own design can support.
Fit is the first question and it is settled from the Aims & Scope: is pain the subject of the work? Theoretical, methodological, review, policy, computational, preclinical and observational manuscripts are all in scope, and none of them is asked to supply clinical proof, experimental confirmation, therapeutic benefit or novelty of intervention in order to qualify.
The second question is whether the evidence carries the claim the manuscript actually makes. An editor who finds the claim wider than the design will normally ask the authors to narrow the claim rather than treat the work as out of scope.
From assignment to decision
Screening
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
Screening covers scope, completeness, ethics declarations and similarity, and is recorded so a later editor can see what was checked.
Choosing reviewers
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Reviewers are chosen for their competence in the specific methods and subject of the manuscript. Recent co-authors, colleagues at the same institution and anyone with a competing interest are not invited.
Running the review
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.
An editor reads the reports rather than counting them, and resolves disagreement by reading the manuscript and, where useful, seeking a further opinion.
Deciding
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
The decision letter tells the authors what was decided and on what grounds, and distinguishes what is required from what is suggested.
After the decision
An appeal is handled by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. Concerns about a published article are handled under the Editorial Policies.
Conflicts, confidentiality and integrity
Editorial decisions are independent of fees, services, memberships and roles.
An editor is never told whether an author holds membership or how a charge will be settled.
An editor who is an author on a submission, or who has any competing interest in it, hands it to another editor and takes no part in its handling.
A submitted manuscript is confidential. It is not shared, discussed or used outside the review it was sent for.
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Suspected misconduct is referred to the editorial office with the evidence, and is investigated before any public step is taken.