Journal of Advanced Cytology - Editors Guidelines

Editors manage scope screening, reviewer selection, and decision consistency.

• Confirm scope alignment and ethics compliance
• Select reviewers with appropriate expertise
• Provide clear decision letters and revision guidance
• Document rationale for complex decisions

Initial checks include scope fit, ethics approval, data availability, and manuscript completeness.

Desk decisions should be documented with clear rationale and constructive guidance.

• Accept with minor changes
• Major revision with required changes
• Reject with constructive rationale

Editors should manage review timelines and communicate delays promptly.

Invite reviewers with complementary expertise and confirm availability before assignment.

Balanced reviewer selection improves fairness and reduces delays.

Editors must disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when necessary.

Ethics concerns should be escalated to the editorial office.

Maintain clear records of reviewer feedback, decision rationale, and key correspondence.

Decision letters should summarize key reviewer concerns and clarify required revisions.

Provide a concise summary to help authors prioritize changes.

When reviewer recommendations conflict, use evidence based judgment and request additional review when necessary.

Verify that major concerns are addressed and that responses are complete.

If critical issues remain, request additional clarification before decision.

The editorial office provides guidance on policy questions, ethics concerns, and complex cases.

Editors should apply policies consistently across study designs to support fairness and transparency.

Use standardized decision templates and reviewer summaries to improve clarity for authors.

Document key rationale for decisions to support transparency and future audits.

• Summarize major reviewer concerns clearly
• Identify mandatory revisions and optional suggestions
• Note ethics or data concerns for follow up
• Maintain concise and professional tone

Editors should synthesize reviewer comments into actionable guidance and resolve conflicts when needed.

Clear synthesis reduces revision cycles and improves author satisfaction.

Consistent communication strengthens trust in the editorial process.

Editors should prioritize clarity and fairness in final decisions.

Timely decisions support author satisfaction and publication timelines.

Efficient workflows help maintain reviewer engagement.

Clear guidance supports consistent standards across editors.

Consistency improves fairness for authors.

Fair processes reinforce confidence in editorial outcomes.