Editors Guidelines
Editors are central to the quality and integrity of Arthritis Research and Therapy. These guidelines outline responsibilities, decision standards, and best practices for handling submissions with fairness and clinical rigor.
Core Responsibilities
Editors evaluate scope fit, select qualified reviewers, and make evidence based decisions. They ensure that submissions meet ethical requirements and that reviewer feedback is constructive, balanced, and aligned with clinical relevance.
Reviewer Selection Best Practices
Select reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the manuscript topic and methodology. Avoid overburdening the same reviewers and consider diversity of perspectives to strengthen evaluation quality. Confirm that reviewers disclose conflicts of interest before accepting the assignment.
Screen submissions for scope and completeness.
Select reviewers with relevant expertise.
Ensure ethics approvals and disclosures are present.
Deliver clear, well justified decisions.
Decision Standards
Editorial decisions should reflect methodological rigor, clinical impact, and originality. Editors should weigh reviewer input while applying consistent journal standards. Decisions must be independent of funding, institutional pressure, or APC considerations.
Handling Revisions
When revisions are required, editors should provide clear, prioritized guidance and indicate which comments are essential for acceptance. Encourage authors to respond with point by point replies and to highlight changes. Efficient revision handling keeps special issue and regular workflows on schedule.
Confidentiality and Conflicts
Editors must treat all manuscripts as confidential and avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage. Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed, and editors should recuse themselves when necessary.
Ethical Concerns
If potential misconduct is suspected, editors should consult the editorial office and request clarification from authors. Concerns may include image manipulation, duplicate submission, or missing ethics approvals. Decisions should be documented and handled consistently.
Timeliness and Communication
Efficient editorial handling is critical for authors. Editors should respond promptly to reviewer delays, provide clear guidance on revisions, and communicate decisions in a professional and respectful manner. Aim to keep review cycles moving within stated timelines.
Appeals and Complaints
Editors should handle appeals objectively, focusing on evidence and reviewer feedback. If an author raises a complaint, acknowledge it respectfully and route it to the editorial office for consistent resolution. Escalate complex cases to the editorial office when needed, promptly.
Support High Quality Arthritis Publishing
Thank you for your editorial leadership and commitment to research integrity.
