As an editor for a Science Partner Journal, you are part of a valued community and are an integral part in disseminating high-quality peer reviewed research. As a scientific editor, the Science Partner Journals rely on your experience and expertise to evaluate and accept the highest quality research to be published.
The Science Partner Journals also rely on the members of their Editorial Board to serve as an ambassador for the journal, helping to inform others about the journal and encouraging valuable research to be submitted.
For general guidance on using the manuscript submission system, please read the tutorials for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers. For questions on specific functionality, explore the Editorial Manager video library.
Handling a Manuscript
Once a manuscript is submitted, the editorial office staff will complete a technical check to make sure all required information is complete before assigning the manuscript to an appropriate editor.
Once you receive an assignment or invitation to handle a manuscript, you will be able to view the manuscript file and the details of the submission. You will also to be able to make a decision to reject without review, if you decide the manuscript does not warrant further review.
If the manuscript does warrant further review, you will be able to invite reviewers. You can search for reviewers that are already registered in the submission system, register specific reviewers, or you can utilize the Reviewer Locator tool to help find appropriate reviewers. Once you find reviewers you can list them to be invited immediately, or you can list them as “alternates” so that they are invited if other reviewers are unable to review. It is always a good idea to list as many additional reviewers as “alternates” as possible to make sure the review process proceeds as quickly as possible. Once you are done listing reviewers, the system and the editorial office will take care of contacting them for you. If more suggestions are needed, the editorial office will notify you.
Once all the reviews have been received, the editorial office will notify you so that you can read through them and make your decision. Once your decision is submitted the editorial office will notify the authors.
Guidelines for Editors
- Be objective. If an editor cannot judge a paper impartially, they should not accept the invitation to serve as editor. If an editor has any professional, personal, or financial affiliations that are or even may be perceived as a conflict of interest in handling the manuscript, they should not accept the invitation to handle the manuscript, or, if this conflict of interest is uncovered after seeing the full manuscript materials, they should recuse themselves immediately and fully inform the editorial office.
- Provide considerate and useful comments. Editors are encouraged and expected to provide feedback on manuscripts they make a decision on, regardless of whether the decision was made with or without reviews. Editors should always provide a clear and constructive reason for declining the paper, or clear instructions on how authors should revise their paper, particularly if the reviews are not clear or are in disagreement. The editor should also note any personal comments they see in reviews, alerting the editorial office to edit out comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts. If something is unclear due to the language please address this in your comments, however editors and reviewers are not expected to edit/correct the grammar or language in the manuscript. Comments should be restricted to the scientific content, however, if English language editing is recommended, the editors can direct the authors to the SPJ English Language Editing Service page.
- Work promptly. In order to usher manuscripts through the review process as quickly as possible, we ask that editors make their decisions within a few days of receiving the manuscript/reviews.
- Maintain confidentiality. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Editors should destroy all copies of the manuscript after the review process is complete and not share the manuscript with any colleagues. Editors should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors’ specific permission.
- Know our Editorial Policies. Editors should be aware of the Science Partner Journal policies regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing. To review these guidelines, please visit the Publication Ethics page.
Criteria for Evaluation
- Scope: The manuscript should fall within the scope of the journal.
- Novelty: The information should not already exist in the literature. It should be innovative and answer an important question within the field. Ideally, it should also have the potential for implications outside of the field.
- Methods: The approach should be clear, appropriate, rigorous, and current.
- Conclusions: The evidence provided should justify the conclusions and the conclusions should be compelling enough to deserve rapid publication.