Editor Guidelines
Standards for toxicology editorial excellence.
Editorial Board Responsibilities
Editors serve as scholarly gatekeepers ensuring published toxicology research meets rigorous standards for scientific validity, methodological appropriateness, and contribution to the field.
Editors evaluate assigned manuscripts for scope alignment, scientific merit, and methodological rigor. Initial assessment determines whether submissions warrant peer review or should be declined before external evaluation. Effective screening protects reviewer resources while ensuring appropriate manuscripts receive thorough evaluation.
For manuscripts proceeding to review, editors identify and invite qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewer selection considers subject matter expertise, methodological competence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. Editors should maintain diverse reviewer perspectives while ensuring appropriate specialization for each manuscript.
Manuscript Assessment
Evaluate scope fit, scientific validity, and methodological appropriateness. Consider novelty, significance, and potential contribution to toxicology knowledge. Screen for obvious quality issues before reviewer assignment.
Reviewer Selection
Identify qualified reviewers with appropriate expertise. Consider geographic diversity and avoid repeated reviewer burden. Verify no conflicts of interest exist with authors or institutions.
Decision Making
Synthesize reviewer recommendations into fair editorial decisions based on scientific merit. Provide authors with constructive guidance regardless of decision. Maintain consistency in quality standards across manuscripts.
Editors must maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and peer review communications. Content and reviewer identities must not be disclosed without appropriate authorization. Editors should recuse from handling manuscripts where personal, professional, or financial conflicts exist.
Editors ensure fair treatment of all submissions regardless of author geography, institutional prestige, or personal relationship. Decisions should be based solely on scientific merit and journal scope. Any suspected misconduct should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief for investigation following COPE guidelines.
Initial screening decisions should be completed within 1-2 days of assignment. Reviewer invitations should proceed promptly to maintain overall review timeline targets. When reviewer responses are delayed, editors should follow up or seek alternative reviewers to avoid excessive delays.
Support Available: Editorial office provides administrative support for reviewer tracking, author communication, and decision letter preparation. Contact [email protected] for assistance.
