Editors Guidelines for JHD
Editorial leadership at JHD requires fair decisions, timely communication, and strong scientific judgment.
Primary Responsibilities of Handling Editors
Editors maintain quality and consistency across hereditary disease submissions.
Handling editors assess initial scope fit, ethics declarations, and manuscript completeness before peer review. Out-of-scope papers should be declined quickly with concise reasoning to avoid unnecessary reviewer load and author delay.
Editors must select reviewers with appropriate hereditary disease and methodological expertise, monitor response timelines, and intervene when reviews are delayed or non-actionable.
From Assignment to Final Recommendation
Consistent workflow improves fairness and author experience.
Initial Screening
Check scope, ethics, conflicts, and data statement completeness.
Reviewer Assignment
Invite balanced reviewers with topic and methods expertise.
Synthesis of Reviews
Separate critical issues from optional suggestions.
Decision Communication
Issue clear, actionable guidance with rationale.
Decisions should map to standard categories and explain why each category was selected. Editors should avoid contradictory requests and ensure that required revisions are directly tied to scientific validity.
Communication and Escalation Standards
Professional communication is part of scientific quality control.
Editor messages should be respectful, specific, and efficient. When authors raise ethical disputes, authorship concerns, or data access conflicts, escalate to the editorial office promptly and document the issue in the system.
Consistent documentation of key decision points supports transparency and continuity if handling responsibilities change during review.
Reviewer Selection and Follow-Up
Reviewer choice has direct impact on decision quality and timeline reliability.
Select reviewers who combine topic expertise with methodological competence relevant to the manuscript. If invitations decline or expire, rotate quickly to maintain momentum. Editors should avoid over-reliance on a narrow reviewer pool for specialized hereditary topics.
When reviewer feedback conflicts, synthesize the technical issues clearly instead of forwarding contradictions directly to authors.
Writing Actionable Editorial Decisions
Concise, structured decisions improve author revision quality.
State required revisions explicitly and link each requirement to scientific validity. Distinguish core issues from optional enhancements so authors can prioritize work effectively and avoid unnecessary delay.
Record Handling Decisions
Clear records improve continuity across editorial transitions.
Document major rationale points in the system so later reviewers and editors can follow decision history accurately.
Support High-Quality Editorial Decisions
Use these guidelines to keep hereditary disease review fair, rigorous, and timely.
For support: [email protected]
