Open Access & Peer-Reviewed
Submit ManuscriptJTT invites qualified thrombosis and vascular medicine experts to join our editorial network. We seek editors who combine domain expertise with fair decision discipline and strong publication ethics awareness.
Submit your CV, expertise keywords, editorial background, and preferred manuscript categories. Include ORCID if available and provide one primary communication email for assignment coordination.
Applications are reviewed for fit and capacity. Approved candidates receive onboarding guidance.
Editorial office checks topic alignment and publication maturity.
Timeline reliability and handling readiness are evaluated.
Selected editors receive guidance on governance and decision standards.
First assignments are mapped to declared expertise for quality handling.
Editorial reliability is built through practical consistency: transparent conflict disclosure, evidence linked decision notes, and predictable communication with authors and reviewers. Strong editors do not only make sound decisions; they also document reasoning clearly, escalate integrity concerns early, and keep handling timelines realistic. This operating discipline reduces avoidable revision cycles, improves author confidence in the process, and supports long term governance credibility across thrombosis publishing workflows.
Use a structured method for every manuscript: scope fit, methodological strength, risk signals, and recommendation rationale. Consistent structure improves fairness and helps the editorial office maintain dependable quality control.
Concise, specific, and respectful editorial communication accelerates revision quality and protects review momentum. When delays or conflicts appear, early escalation is the preferred professional standard.
Editorial excellence is operational, not theoretical. JTT recommends a repeatable benchmark set for every assignment: first response acknowledgement within one business cycle, clear reviewer instruction quality, documented rationale for major decisions, and timely escalation when reviewer delay or ethics uncertainty appears. These benchmarks create measurable consistency, protect author confidence, and reduce downstream rework. Teams that apply a benchmark model produce steadier decision quality and stronger publication governance outcomes over time.
Send your profile package for assessment and onboarding consideration.
