For Editors

Trust is the foundation of the Edelweiss Publications we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our readers. Editors of our journals are essential and valuable resources, there are vested with the job of gaining trust among readers. Experts in each field are been invited to form editorial board of Edelweiss Publications journals. Their role is to handle the peer review of manuscripts, make recommendation on the acceptance or rejection of a paper and attract high-quality submissions. Below are some guidelines for editors, based on COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Editors of edelweiss publications will be asked to adhere to the guidelines strictly, which helps us in serving scientific community

Assigning Reviewers

Editors should ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests). Editors should ideally choose at least two reviewers to provide a report.

Editors should cease to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews. Editors should use a wide range of sources to identify potential new reviewers, give equal importance to authors suggestions apart from their known associates.

Peer Review Process

Journal editors should give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for consideration for publication, and should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).

Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described peer review process. Editors should make sure require reviewers do not have any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

Editors should decide is the study scientifically valid and clearly presented; for example is the sample size adequate, are the results adequately and clearly presented and explained, and have the investigators excluded or considered the possible confounding factors and/or biases? Second, does the study contribute sufficiently to knowledge to make acceptance and publication a possibility?

Do the benefits outweigh the harms in this particular study’s case? If there is doubt about local law or regulations, editors should clarify this with the authors and ask them to provide a letter from the individual research ethics committee or the research ethics authority in that country about the research.

Content of the manuscript and the details of the peer review process should be held with high level of confidentiality. Author information and about the manuscript must not be shared outside apart from reviewers.

Final Decision

Decision of editors are considered final in all journals, and this decision to accept or reject a manuscript for publishing in an particular journal should be done on the reviews and recommendation of reviewers and editors understanding on the importance of the paper. Publishing high quality papers with valid study shall help the community better.

Our output will be based on fairness, openness, honesty and straight dealing. Contributing authors should be treated with respect.

Editors should accept or reject the manuscript basing on the scope of the journal or if editor finds it is inappropriate for the journal. Editor-in-chief should be contacted in case of misconduct or for any complaints else journal manager can be contacted instead.

Our output will be based on fairness, openness, honesty and straight dealing. Contributing authors should be treated with respect.

Complaints & Misconduct

Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.

Scientific misconduct includes but is not necessarily limited to data fabrication; data falsification including deceptive manipulation of images; and plagiarism Some people consider failure to publish the results of clinical trials and other human studies a form of scientific misconduct. While each of these practices is problematic, they are not equivalent. Each situation requires individual assessment by relevant stakeholders. When scientific misconduct is alleged, or concerns are otherwise raised about the conduct or integrity of work described in submitted or published papers, the editor should initiate appropriate procedures detailed by such committees such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and may choose to publish an expression of concern pending the outcomes of those procedures.

Whoever informs the editor-in-chief or publisher of such conduct must provide all the information needed for the investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

Editorial board members must guarantee prompt responses to the complainants by taking action and correcting the signalled errors. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Edelweiss Publications is an open access publisher.