Guide for Editors

This guide defines the roles, responsibilities, and operational standards for editors of Scientific Research Review (SRR). It is designed to ensure academic rigor, editorial transparency, ethical compliance, and consistency in accordance with internationally recognized publishing standards and indexing requirements (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science).

SRR is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity, reproducibility, and editorial independence.

1. Editorial Structure and Responsibilities

1.1 Editor-in-Chief (EiC)

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the scientific leadership and strategic direction of the journal. Duties include:

  • Defining and safeguarding the journal’s scientific scope and standards

  • Ensuring compliance with international ethical publishing principles (COPE-aligned)

  • Making final editorial decisions on all manuscripts

  • Appointing and evaluating Associate Editors and Editorial Board members

  • Overseeing peer-review quality and editorial performance

  • Representing the journal to indexing bodies, publishers, and academic institutions

  • Ensuring publication schedule consistency and scholarly impact

The EiC maintains full editorial independence.

1.2 Associate Editors

Associate Editors manage manuscripts within their subject expertise. Responsibilities include:

  • Conducting initial technical and scientific screening

  • Selecting qualified, independent peer reviewers

  • Evaluating reviewer reports for scientific rigor and fairness

  • Providing evidence-based recommendations to the EiC

  • Ensuring timely and ethical handling of submissions

  • Identifying potential ethical concerns

Associate Editors must uphold methodological and technical standards appropriate to scientific and engineering research.

1.3 Editorial Board Members

Editorial Board members are expected to:

  • Provide strategic advice on journal development

  • Review manuscripts when requested

  • Recommend qualified reviewers

  • Promote the journal within international academic networks

  • Support special issues and thematic collections

Board composition should reflect disciplinary expertise, geographic diversity, and institutional representation.

2. Editorial Independence and Academic Integrity

Editors must:

  • Make decisions solely on scientific merit and relevance

  • Act impartially and without discrimination

  • Avoid conflicts of interest

  • Maintain strict confidentiality throughout review

  • Protect the integrity of the scholarly record

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial interests, institutional pressure, personal relationships, or citation considerations.

3. Manuscript Handling Workflow

SRR follows a structured editorial workflow to ensure fairness, rigor, and efficiency.

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation)

Editors assess:

  • Alignment with journal scope

  • Scientific originality and contribution

  • Technical and methodological soundness

  • Ethical compliance and disclosure completeness

  • LaTeX formatting and structural adequacy

Manuscripts that fail to meet minimum scientific or ethical standards may be desk-rejected with a clear and professional explanation.

Step 2: Reviewer Selection

Editors must:

  • Select at least two independent expert reviewers

  • Ensure subject-matter expertise

  • Avoid institutional or collaborative conflicts

  • Maintain reviewer diversity where possible

  • Avoid excessive reliance on author-suggested reviewers

Reviewer identities remain confidential under double-blind review.

Step 3: Peer Review Management

Editors are responsible for:

  • Monitoring review timelines

  • Ensuring constructive and technically relevant feedback

  • Evaluating the depth and validity of reviewer comments

  • Addressing ethical or methodological concerns raised during review

  • Requesting additional reviews if reports conflict significantly

Scientific rigor, reproducibility, and clarity of contribution must guide editorial judgment.

Step 4: Editorial Decision

Decisions may include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Recommendations must be supported by reasoned evaluation of reviewer feedback and editorial assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority in contested or complex cases.

4. Communication Standards

Decision letters must:

  • Clearly explain the rationale for the decision

  • Summarize key strengths and weaknesses

  • Avoid dismissive or personal language

  • Provide guidance for revision when applicable

Transparency and professionalism are mandatory in all communications.

5. Ethical Oversight and Research Integrity

Editors must identify and address potential misconduct, including:

  • Plagiarism and duplicate publication

  • Data fabrication or falsification

  • Image manipulation

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

  • Authorship disputes

  • Citation manipulation

All ethical cases must be handled in accordance with COPE flowcharts and documented thoroughly.

Where necessary, the EiC may initiate:

  • Expressions of concern

  • Corrections

  • Retractions

6. Conflict of Interest Management

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where:

  • They have co-authored with the author(s) within the past five years

  • They share institutional affiliation

  • Personal or professional relationships exist

  • Financial interests could influence judgment

Such manuscripts must be reassigned to an independent editor.

All conflicts must be disclosed internally.

7. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Editorial Processes

Editors may use AI tools for:

  • Language quality screening

  • Reviewer identification assistance

  • Plagiarism detection

However:

  • AI must not make editorial decisions

  • Confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded to unsecured AI platforms

  • Human judgment remains central to all editorial decisions

AI use must not compromise confidentiality or integrity.

8. Special Issues and Thematic Collections

For special issues:

  • Guest Editors must be formally approved by the EiC

  • A written proposal with scope and timeline must be submitted

  • All manuscripts undergo identical peer-review standards

  • The EiC retains final decision authority

Guest Editors must follow all ethical and procedural policies.

9. Timeliness and Performance Expectations

Editors are expected to:

  • Complete initial screening within 7–10 days

  • Secure reviewers within 14 days

  • Aim for first decision within 4–6 weeks

  • Communicate delays transparently

Performance is reviewed periodically to ensure consistency and quality.

10. Post-Acceptance Responsibilities

Editors must ensure:

  • Compliance with formatting and LaTeX standards

  • Ethical disclosures are complete

  • Data availability statements are included

  • Metadata accuracy (authors, affiliations, ORCID, funding)

  • Final approval of proofs before publication

Each accepted article must receive a DOI and proper archiving.

11. Retractions, Corrections, and Appeals

Editors must:

  • Investigate appeals objectively

  • Document all decisions

  • Issue corrections or retractions where necessary

  • Protect the integrity of the scientific record

Appeals are reviewed independently, and final decisions rest with the EiC.

12. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Editors must:

  • Treat all submissions as confidential documents

  • Not use unpublished material for personal research

  • Protect reviewer anonymity

  • Comply with data protection standards

Breach of confidentiality constitutes serious misconduct.

13. Diversity, Inclusion, and Global Representation

SRR promotes:

  • Geographic diversity in authorship and review

  • Gender balance and inclusive practices

  • Fair treatment of early-career researchers

  • Objective and unbiased evaluation

Editorial decisions must remain free from discrimination.

14. Compliance and Accountability

Editors are accountable for:

  • Upholding journal policies and scientific standards

  • Supporting indexing and quality assurance processes

  • Maintaining consistent publication quality

  • Participating in periodic editorial performance review

Failure to comply with these standards may result in reassignment or removal from editorial responsibilities.