Editor guidelines

For Editors

What the journal asks of an editor handling a manuscript: an impartial assessment, a reviewer panel that fits the work, and a decision the editor is prepared to defend.

Journal of Spleen And Liver Research
ISSN 2578-2371
Published by Open Access Pub
Open access, peer-reviewed

The role

What an editor is responsible for

An editor is accountable for the manuscripts they handle, from the first look to the decision letter. Each decision rests on a reasoned assessment of the manuscript’s scope, evidence and reporting.

ScopeDecide whether the spleen, the liver or the hepatobiliary system is the subject of the work rather than its setting, and whether the question is one this journal should carry.

ScreeningAll submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Desk-decline promptly and say why, so an author can move on without losing months.

Review modelSingle-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Honor a double-blind request in full when one is made.

ReviewersSelect reviewers for the specific question, not the general field. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Check availability, expertise and any conflict before inviting.

DecisionsEditorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Weigh the reviews, resolve disagreement on the evidence, and write a letter that tells the author what would change the outcome.

Independence

Where an editor stands apart

Editorial standing exists to protect the assessment. The safeguards below apply to every manuscript the journal handles.

Commercial programsDecisions remain independent of fees, membership, editorial roles and paid services. An author’s membership, the charge that applies to their article, their use of optional language editing and their institution carry no weight in an editorial judgment.

Own workEditors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions, and those manuscripts are handled independently by another editor.

ConflictsDeclare a competing interest in a manuscript — collaboration, rivalry, shared institution, financial interest — and hand the manuscript on.

ConfidentialityA submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not share it, cite it or use its content before publication, and do not discuss it outside the review process.

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

Integrity

When something is wrong with a submission

Concerns are raised early, documented, and resolved by the journal rather than left to the author.

1PauseStop the decision when a concern arises about authorship, ethics approval, consent, data integrity, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts or duplicate submission.

2RecordWrite down what was observed, with the evidence, and notify the editorial office. Similarity reports are read in context, never against a fixed percentage.

3AskPut the question to the corresponding author and give them a fair opportunity to respond.

4ResolveWhere a concern is substantiated, the journal acts on the published record through a correction or a retraction notice that states the reason.

Editorial Policies Reviewer Guidelines

Where to go next

Aims and Scope

The full remit, the accepted article types and the subject boundary.

Instructions for Authors

Manuscript preparation, reporting requirements and what to submit.

Editorial Policies

Ethics, authorship, corrections, conflicts of interest and review.

Article Processing Charges

What is charged, when it applies and what it covers.

Editorial Board

Every editor, with affiliation and profile.