Editors & Reviewers
Editor Guidelines
These guidelines set out the responsibilities, standards, and procedures that govern editorial work across NovaVel journals. All editors — including Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Guest Editors — are expected to uphold these principles in every aspect of their editorial role.
Editorial Responsibilities
Editors are the custodians of the journal's scientific integrity and scholarly reputation. Their primary obligation is to the readers and the broader research community, not to the interests of authors, reviewers, or the publisher.
Scope and Quality Oversight
Editors are responsible for ensuring that all published content falls within the journal's defined scope and meets its standards for scientific rigour, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution. Manuscripts that do not meet these thresholds should not proceed to peer review.
Fair and Timely Processing
Editors must handle all submitted manuscripts promptly and equitably, without regard to the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or seniority. Undue delays in the editorial process are detrimental to authors and to the journal's reputation.
Reviewer Management
Editors are responsible for identifying and inviting suitably qualified reviewers, monitoring the progress of reviews, and following up with reviewers who have not responded within the agreed timeframe. The quality and timeliness of peer review is an editorial responsibility.
Confidentiality
Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. The content, data, and findings of a manuscript under review must not be disclosed to, or discussed with, any third party without the explicit permission of the Editor-in-Chief.
Upholding Publication Ethics
Editors are responsible for identifying and acting on suspected research misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and other ethical violations. Editors should consult NovaVel's Research Misconduct and Publication Ethics policies when concerns arise.
Post-Publication Responsibilities
Editorial responsibility does not end at publication. Editors must be prepared to issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when post-publication concerns are raised, in accordance with NovaVel's Corrections and Retractions policy and COPE guidelines.
Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Editors should assess manuscripts against the following criteria at both the initial desk review stage and when synthesising peer review reports into an editorial decision.
Scope
Does the manuscript fall within the journal's stated aims and scope? Manuscripts outside scope should be returned promptly with a brief explanation, enabling authors to seek a more appropriate venue without delay.
Originality
Does the manuscript make a genuine and novel contribution to the field? Incremental studies that do not advance knowledge meaningfully, or work that substantially duplicates previously published research, are not suitable for publication.
Scientific Rigour
Is the research question clearly stated? Are the methodology, data collection, and analysis appropriate, transparent, and reproducible? Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
Ethical Compliance
Has the research been conducted in accordance with applicable ethical standards? Are the necessary approvals, consent statements, and disclosures present? Manuscripts with unresolved ethical concerns must not be accepted.
Presentation
Is the manuscript clearly written, logically structured, and of an appropriate length? While language quality alone is not grounds for rejection, manuscripts that are incomprehensible due to poor presentation may be returned to authors before review.
References
Are the cited sources appropriate, current, and accurately represented? Editors should be alert to excessive self-citation, citation manipulation, or the omission of relevant prior work.
Decision-Making Process
Editorial decisions must be based on the scientific merit of the manuscript and the quality of the peer review reports. Editors should exercise independent judgement and are not bound to follow reviewer recommendations mechanically.
Initial Desk Assessment
Upon receipt of a new submission, the handling editor conducts an initial assessment within five business days. Manuscripts that are clearly outside scope, fail to meet minimum quality thresholds, or do not comply with submission requirements may be returned to authors without external review. A brief, constructive explanation should accompany any desk rejection.
Reviewer Selection and Invitation
The editor identifies a minimum of two independent expert reviewers with no conflicts of interest with the authors. Reviewer invitations should be sent within seven business days of desk acceptance. If a reviewer declines, the editor should seek an alternative promptly.
Synthesis of Review Reports
Once review reports are received, the editor reads them carefully alongside the manuscript. Where reviewer recommendations diverge significantly, the editor should seek an additional review or consult a senior editor before reaching a decision. Editors should not simply average reviewer scores; they must exercise independent scholarly judgement.
Communicating the Decision
The editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author promptly, accompanied by the anonymised reviewer reports in full and, where applicable, specific revision instructions. Decision letters should be clear, constructive, and actionable.
Handling Revisions
When a revised manuscript is received, the editor assesses whether the authors have addressed the reviewer comments adequately. Minor revisions may be assessed by the editor alone; major revisions should ordinarily be returned to the original reviewers. The editor should not request repeated rounds of major revision without clear justification.
Possible Outcomes
Manuscript is accepted as submitted or subject only to minor typographical corrections.
Acceptable in principle; authors given 14–21 days. Assessed by the editor on resubmission.
Substantial revision required; authors given 30–60 days. Returned to reviewers on resubmission.
Not suitable in current form but merits a substantially revised resubmission, treated as a new manuscript.
Does not meet publication standards. Authors may appeal under NovaVel's Complaints and Appeals policy.
Conflict of Interest Management
Editors must be free from conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity. The following obligations apply to all editors handling manuscripts.
Mandatory Disclosure
Editors must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest to the Editor-in-Chief before handling a manuscript. Conflicts include personal relationships with authors, prior collaboration within the preceding three years, institutional affiliation, financial interests, and any other circumstance that could reasonably be perceived as compromising objectivity.
Recusal
An editor who has a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript must recuse themselves from all editorial decisions relating to that manuscript. The manuscript should be reassigned to another editor without delay.
Own Submissions
Editors must not handle manuscripts submitted by themselves, their close colleagues, or their current students. Such manuscripts must be assigned to an independent editor who has no connection to the authors.
Reviewer Conflicts
Editors are responsible for ensuring that invited reviewers do not have conflicts of interest with the authors. Reviewers should be asked to declare any potential conflicts before accepting an invitation, and editors should act on any conflicts that come to light.
Communication with Authors and Reviewers
Communicating with Authors
- All communications with authors must be professional, respectful, and constructive, regardless of the editorial outcome.
- Decision letters must clearly state the outcome, provide the full anonymised reviewer reports, and — where revision is invited — specify the key issues that must be addressed.
- Editors should respond to author enquiries about manuscript status within a reasonable timeframe. Authors should not be left without a response for more than ten business days.
- Editors must not disclose the identity of reviewers to authors, unless the reviewer has explicitly consented to disclosure.
- When an author disputes a reviewer comment, the editor should consider the argument on its merits and, where appropriate, seek clarification from the reviewer or an additional expert opinion.
Communicating with Reviewers
- Reviewer invitations must clearly state the manuscript title, the expected scope of the review, and the deadline for submission of the review report.
- Editors should acknowledge receipt of completed review reports and inform reviewers of the editorial outcome once a decision has been made.
- Editors should not share the identity of one reviewer with another reviewer, or with the authors, without explicit consent.
- Editors should provide feedback to reviewers whose reports are incomplete, superficial, or unprofessional, and should not invite such reviewers again without improvement.
Professional Conduct Expectations
Editors represent NovaVel and its journals in the scholarly community. The following standards of professional conduct are expected of all editors.
Independence
Editorial decisions must be made independently, free from commercial, political, or personal influence. Editors must not allow the journal's commercial interests, including article processing charges, to influence editorial decisions.
Consistency and Fairness
Editors must apply the same standards and criteria to all manuscripts, regardless of the authors' identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, or prior relationship with the journal.
Transparency
Editors should be transparent about the editorial process and their own role within it. Where an editor has made a decision that departs from reviewer recommendations, the reasoning should be documented in the editorial record.
Continuing Development
Editors are encouraged to stay current with developments in publication ethics, peer review practices, and their subject area. NovaVel supports editors in accessing relevant training and resources provided by COPE and other professional bodies.
Use of AI Tools
Editors must not use generative AI or AI-assisted tools to make or substantially inform editorial decisions, draft decision letters, or produce review assessments. AI tools may be used for administrative tasks such as formatting checks, but the intellectual substance of editorial work must remain the editor's own.
Reporting Misconduct
Editors who become aware of suspected research misconduct, review manipulation, or other ethical violations must report the matter to the Editor-in-Chief promptly. NovaVel follows COPE guidelines in investigating and resolving all such matters.
COPE Guidelines and Further Resources
NovaVel is committed to following the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all editorial matters. Editors are encouraged to consult the COPE Core Practices and COPE Flowcharts when handling complex or novel situations. Where a situation is not covered by these guidelines, editors should consult the Editor-in-Chief.