Guidelines for Editors

The editorial team at IJAI plays a pivotal role in ensuring the quality, transparency, and integrity of the journal's content. These guidelines delineate the responsibilities and expectations for editors, providing a structured framework to facilitate fair and effective editorial decision-making.

  • Upon submission, the editor-in-chief or an associate editor conducts an initial assessment of each manuscript.
  • This assessment includes examining the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, ensuring its originality, verifying compliance with submission guidelines, and addressing any ethical concerns, such as plagiarism or conflicts of interest.
  • If a manuscript is deemed unsuitable for the journal, the editor may choose to reject it without subjecting it to peer review. This decision should be communicated to the authors promptly, along with clear explanations for the rejection.
  • Editors are tasked with identifying qualified peer reviewers who possess expertise pertinent to the manuscript's subject matter.
  • Confirm that the chosen reviewers are free from any conflicts of interest and are equipped to deliver a comprehensive and impartial evaluation.
  • Evaluate diversity in expertise, geographic location, and perspective to facilitate thorough reviews.
  • Furnish reviewers with clear guidelines and deadlines to ensure timely completion of the review process.
  • Supervise the double-blind review procedure to maintain anonymity for both authors and reviewers, thereby minimizing bias.
  • Continuously monitor the progress of the reviews to ensure timely completion. Follow up with reviewers as necessary.
  • Proactively address any issues or delays in the review process to prevent unnecessary setbacks in decision-making.
  • Upon receiving the peer reviews, the editor assesses the quality of the feedback and carefully considers the reviewers' recommendations.

Based on the reviews and the editor’s assessment, the editor will make the final decision to:

  • Accept the manuscript.
  • Request minor or major revisions.
  • Reject the manuscript.

In instances of conflicting reviews, the editor may either seek additional reviews or make an independent decision based on the strength of the presented arguments. It is essential to provide authors with a clear and constructive summary of the peer review feedback. Decisions should be communicated promptly and professionally, accompanied by detailed explanations. When revisions are necessary, it is critical to outline the specific points that need to be addressed and to establish a deadline for resubmission.

Editors must also ensure the avoidance of conflicts of interest when managing manuscripts. Examples of potential conflicts include:

  • Manuscripts submitted by colleagues, friends, or family members of the editor.
  • Manuscripts from institutions or organizations in which the editor has a financial or personal stake.

In the event of a conflict of interest, the editor should delegate the manuscript to another editor for the review process. Manuscripts are to be treated as confidential documents; editors are prohibited from disclosing any details regarding the submission to individuals outside the peer review process.Editors bear the responsibility of ensuring that reviewers also adhere to confidentiality guidelines and do not share the manuscript's contents. Furthermore, it is the editor's duty to ensure that all published research complies with ethical standards. Should ethical issues arise—such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or breaches of research ethics—editors must conduct a thorough investigation and take appropriate measures, which may include rejecting the manuscript or issuing a correction or retraction post-publication.Editorial decisions should be made impartially, evaluating manuscripts solely on their academic merit, without regard to the authors' race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs. Editors should actively work to eliminate implicit bias and foster diversity and inclusion within the peer review process.When authors submit a revised manuscript, editors are responsible for confirming that all reviewer comments have been adequately addressed. Revisions requiring significant changes may be referred back to the original reviewers or new reviewers for further evaluation. Editors must ensure that the revised manuscript meets the journal's standards of quality before final acceptance. Authors retain the right to appeal decisions with which they disagree. Editors must:

  • Review appeals carefully and consider the arguments raised by the authors.
  • Consult additional reviewers or seek advice from members of the editorial board, if necessary.
  • Make a final decision based on a thorough and fair review of the appeal, providing a clear explanation to the authors.

Editors are responsible for addressing any complaints related to the peer review process in a professional and transparent manner. If a significant error or ethical issue is discovered post-publication, editors must collaborate with the authors to issue a correction or, in severe cases, a retraction. Retractions should be managed in accordance with the journal’s established policy and the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Additionally, editors are encouraged to monitor the impact and reach of the journal’s articles through citations, media coverage, and other relevant metrics. Promoting high-quality content to enhance the journal’s visibility and reputation is an essential aspect of an editor’s responsibilities.

Editors play a pivotal role in the ongoing enhancement of the journal by:

  • Regularly reviewing and updating editorial policies to ensure alignment with best practices in academic publishing.
  • Soliciting feedback from reviewers, authors, and readers to pinpoint areas for improvement.
  • Innovating new methodologies to enhance the peer review process, including approaches such as open peer review or collaborative reviews when appropriate.

Editors play a crucial role in guiding authors to enhance the quality of their manuscripts through constructive feedback. They should also provide essential resources, including submission guidelines, ethical standards, and writing tips, to assist authors in preparing high-quality submissions. Recognizing the valuable contributions of peer reviewers is vital; editors can do this by offering certificates of review, including reviewers in an annual acknowledgment, or providing incentives.Supporting new reviewers through training and constructive feedback is essential for fostering a collaborative and inclusive academic community. Editors are expected to adhere to the ethical guidelines and best practices established by COPE and other relevant organizations. Periodically, the editor-in-chief may assess the performance of associate editors and the editorial team to ensure the maintenance of high standards.Editors who fail to uphold ethical standards or do not fulfill their responsibilities effectively may be subject to evaluation by the editorial board or may resign from their positions. Additionally, editors should actively promote diversity, equity, and inclusion within the journal's editorial processes by:

  • Ensuring a diverse cohort of reviewers and authors.
  • Addressing imbalances related to gender and geography in published research.

We encourage research focused on underrepresented topics or conducted by underrepresented groups. These guidelines establish a framework to ensure that editors at [Educational Journal Name] execute their responsibilities with integrity, fairness, and professionalism. By adhering to these standards, editors contribute significantly to maintaining the academic quality and ethical rigor of the journal's publications. Thank you for your dedication to upholding these values.