Guidelines for Editors
The editors’ responsibility include
- checking the fitness of the articles according to the scope of the respective journal;
- selecting the reviewers for peer review;
- conducting the peer review themselves(where required); and
- checking the finally revised manuscript by the authors to ensure properly made revisions
Editors are supposed to ensure that all the articles are according to the publication and editorial policies of Green Publishers. Editors have the right to reject the manuscript if plagiarism is detected, ethical codes are violated or the article does not fall under the scope of the journal or for any other justifiable reason. To manage the peer-review process at its best, editors are expected to select the referees whose qualifications and area of expertise appropriately match the topic of the concerned article. Preferably two referees should be selected for this process within a week. Our database of potential reviewers may help the editors to make this selection. Also suggestions for relevant referees from the author are welcomed though; the editors are not obliged to use these recommendations. The editors reserve the final decision authority, after obtaining the peer review reports, about accepting, rejecting or sending the article back to author for revision. However, they must be careful to make their decisions diligently based on suggestions and comments of the reviewers. If the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion may be sought by the editor. All Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments meeting the journals’ criteria rather than the short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations. Editors’ final decisions should be well-justified and clearly explained for better understanding of the author, especially so if a manuscript is being rejected. They are also considered to reply the concerned queries from the authors if required for revisions. Manuscripts received after revisions by the authors are returned to the initial editors/ referees. It’s notable that the revised versions shouldn’t be acceptable by the editors unless they meet the journals’ standards of quality. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript. Usually the authors are given one chance for revision but in some cases the Editor-in-Chief or the editors can make an exceptional decision of allowing a third round of review based on the novelty of the manuscript, or for being exceptionally interesting for the readers.
