Editors Guidelines
Editors play a central role in maintaining IJAN quality standards. These guidelines outline expectations for editorial decision making, ethics, and communication.
Editorial Role
Decisions are based on scientific merit and clinical relevance.
- Scope and ethics screening
- Reviewer selection
- Clear decision letters
Editorial Expectations
Initial Assessment
Confirm scope fit, ethical compliance, and methodological soundness before peer review.
Reviewer Selection
Select qualified reviewers with relevant perioperative expertise and no conflicts of interest.
Decision Quality
Provide clear guidance to authors based on reviewer feedback and editorial judgment.
Timeliness
Maintain efficient review timelines to support rapid dissemination of clinical research.
Editors must act independently and disclose any potential conflicts to the editorial office.
Professional Conduct
- Treat all submissions as confidential documents.
- Do not use unpublished data for personal research.
- Report suspected misconduct or plagiarism promptly.
- Respect diversity, equity, and inclusion in editorial decisions.
Questions about editorial policy should be directed to [email protected].
Best Practices For Editors
Editors should balance reviewer input with their own assessment of clinical relevance and methodological rigor. Decisions should be communicated clearly and respectfully, with specific guidance on required revisions.
When reviewer feedback conflicts, editors may seek additional review or provide independent judgment. Maintaining consistent standards across submissions is essential to journal integrity.
- Confirm ethical approvals and trial registration.
- Evaluate statistical robustness and sample size justification.
- Encourage data transparency and reproducibility.
- Document conflicts of interest and recuse when needed.
Clear And Constructive Decisions
Decision letters should summarize key strengths and limitations, indicate which issues are essential for revision, and provide a clear final recommendation. Editors should avoid overly technical jargon and ensure that comments are respectful and actionable.
Efficient Review Management
Editors should monitor reviewer responsiveness and request replacements when needed to maintain reasonable decision times. Clear communication with the editorial office ensures consistent workflow.
Handling Disagreements
If reviewer opinions conflict, editors may invite additional review or provide an independent assessment to support a balanced decision.
Appeals Support
Editors may participate in appeal reviews when authors provide new evidence or clarification that addresses reviewer concerns.
Applying Standards Fairly
Use consistent criteria across submissions to ensure fair treatment of authors and reliable journal quality.
Editorial Office Assistance
Editors can consult the editorial office on complex cases to ensure appropriate resolution.
Weighing Evidence
Editors consider both methodological rigor and clinical impact when making decisions.
Shared Standards
Use journal guidelines to maintain consistent review quality across sections.
