2.3.1 Define editorial team structure

In setting up your Journal a first consideration is to define an editorial structure. The editorial team is responsible for managing the peer review process and for guiding the development of editorial content. A variety of structures for this is possible and offer different advantages depending upon the type of journal, volume, and other aspects. The table below summarizes some common structures and when they are most appropriate.

Structure	When appropriate & how work is distributed
Single Chief Editor + (Managing Editor/Editorial Secretary) + Associate Editors	Small to medium-sized, international journal with focused subject matter (not easily broken down into sections). Day-to-day work is generally carried out in Chief Editor’s office, possibly with support from a Managing Editor/Editorial Secretary. Assoc Editors discuss policy with Chief Editor and are generally supportive without being engaged in the daily administration.
Dual Editors-in-Chief +  (Managing Editor/Editorial Secretary) + advisory board	Small to medium-sized journal. Good working relationship and communication between the editors; Editors have complementary skills/knowledge. Some dual editors choose to alternate responsibility for manuscripts or issues, while others divide roles between handling peer review and working to acquire content. Often this structure does not include Associate Editors but may well involve an advisory board, whose members are more actively involved than regular editorial board members.
Single Editor-in-Chief + Section Editors + advisory board	Broad-based and bigger journal, spanning a wide range of sub-specialist subject matter. Excellent for interdisciplinary journals. This structure is often applied to relieve Chief Editor of too heavy a work load.  Section Editors take responsibility for following manuscripts from submission to accept/reject.
Single Chief Editor + Assistant Editor(s) + advisory board	Smaller journal.  Assistant Editor may be junior researcher at the same institution as the Chief Editor. Close cooperation and support on policy etc. is provided by the Advisory Board.
Single Chief Editor + editorial board + advisory board	Medium sized journal. Editorial board works closely with the Chief Editor, each member is responsible for a certain amount of papers (often same institution). Advisory board not involved in day-to-day running of journal.
Single Chief Editor +  advisory board	Small journal, very limited scope. Advisory board often serve as reviewers.

Key Considerations:

• How many layers of editors does the Journal require? Deputy editor, section editor, regional editor, managing editor, associate editor, book review editor, editorial advisory board, editorial board – the choice is yours!
• Are key editors able/willing to use the online submission and publication system which the Journal will apply?

2.3.2 Recruit editorial board

The Editorial Board is not a showcase for the Journal consisting of just “names” but a group of hard working researchers serving as ambassadors of the Journal and dedicated to developing it together with the Chief Editor. There are many different constellations of boards but they are all chosen for their academic merits. As well as refereeing manuscripts, members offer intellectual capital, have networks with fellow academics and/or practitioners, and provide advice to the Editor(s) on the Journal’s policies. A strong editorial board is indicative of the quality of the Journal and the basis for its development.

Normally the Chief Editor or executive/publishing committee – but sometimes even the publisher – chooses the board, but some journals actually recruit new members by advertising vacant positions.

Being on the board of an esteemed journal is generally highly regarded. It is an important academic activity and almost always volunteered.

When recruiting an editorial board for your new Journal, you will likely send a letter to potential board members explaining the Aims & Scope, your reasons for starting the Journal, an introduction to the editorial team, how the Journal will be published and what type of peer review software you plan to use.

Key considerations:

• Do the board members reflect the diversity of the Journal’s scope and/or represent different parts of the world satisfactorily?
• Make sure the board members know exactly what is expected of them and for how long they will serve.
• Is it possible to meet physically with the board members on a regular basis to discuss editorial policy, or is a virtual meeting sufficient. Who pays for travel and accommodation?
• Will any of the board members expect to be paid?
• Find ways of giving the editorial board feed-back about the developments of the journal. It is important to keep up their enthusiasm and commitment!

2.3.3 Adopt editorial policies

The editorial team, together or with input from the editorial board, is responsible for adopting and maintaining editorial policies. The Chief Editor normally leads this activity. If the journal is governed by a board or committee this group will likely be the forum for the official adoption of editorial policies. In some cases the publishing team might also be consulted to ensure that editorial policies will function with technical possibilities (e.g. when defining what file formats shall be accepted or if choosing open online peer review, etc.).

2.3.3.1 Profile your journal

Profiling your journal involves defining the scope, type of content, title and frequency of publication. Taken together these choices will be the most immediate clues to potential authors about what sets your Journal apart from others in the same field. While working through the activities of this section of the guide you might wish to consult the web pages of other journals to define a journal that is unique. The more distinct your Journal profile is, the easier this will be to translate into a marketing message (see Section 4.5.1 Market the Journal).

The entire editorial and/or publishing team will likely be involved in defining the different aspects of the Journal’s profile. If the Journal will be governed by bylaws, this profile might be included in these and adopted by the governing officers (See Section 2.5.5 Consider governance issues).

2.3.3.1.1 Determine journal type

There can be many good reasons for starting a new scholarly or scientific journal. However, from the very start it is important to also choose the right type of journal as this will have both short- and long-term implications for the management of the Journal.

Multidisciplinary journal: A broadly defined multidisciplinary journal will of course have the widest author- and readerships, but they also – among other things – call for more editors/editorial managers and a bigger editorial board (and therefore a more elaborate organization/ bureaucracy) and more diversified promotion (and therefore more time and money spent on marketing activities).

Open Access is very suitable for multidisciplinary journals as communication between research groups that normally read discipline oriented journals now have free access to all content via a single site. A reputation for the Journal can quickly be built up, as opposed to the very slow start of a subscription-based journal where it can take years to sell enough subscriptions for the journal to reach recognition.

The Open Access aspect also has the advantage of reaching reader groups beyond the research community, which is often relevant or desirable for broadly defined journals. For instance, medical journals may be of interest to patient associations or to the industry, and journals in the social sciences and humanities may be of interest to policy makers, journalists and the general public.

Narrowly defined journal: For a more narrowly defined journal, concentrating e.g. on a single subject within a larger research field or on research from a certain geographical region or even institution, both the author, reader and reviewer communities must be big enough to sustain the journal. A slim editorial organization is possible and marketing is directed to a more limited community. It is often easier to obtain financial support for such journals as their benefit to the country or region or institute they emanate from is obvious.

Using the Open Access publishing model for such a narrowly defined journal has the advantage of instantly including all researchers in the particular field or region however small it is and thus carry the discipline forward at a quicker pace. For toll-access journals it may take years to build up a big subscriber/reader base. Again, and depending on the subject or region, Open Access for a single-subject/regional journal may turn out to be of interest to groups of readers other than the immediate research community – an audience it would probably not have reached had it been subscription based.

Key considerations:

Multidisciplinary journals

• Who will be in charge of organizing and maintaining the international network of scholars or scientists?
• If you are the Chief Editor, will you need a managing editor to run the daily business of the Journal?
• If you are the Chief Editor, will your institution provide financial support (e.g. reduced teaching) or in-kind support in the form of office space, telephone, computer, printer etc.? Can you use your secretary/institutional secretary?
• Consider how best to organize the work. For instance, should each of the disciplines represented in the Journal have its own (Associate) Editor with responsibility for all transactions of papers within that specific area? Or should they only be responsible for selecting reviewers and then let the managing editor at the Chief Editor’s office take care of the rest?
• Consider which submission and peer review online system best suits your needs for a complex editorial structure.
• Do you need a marketing manager to promote the Journal across all areas dealt with in the Journal?
• Are all areas of research covered in the Journal equally sensitive/insensitive to the size of Publication fees?

More narrowly defined journals:

• Should geographic and/or disciplinary considerations be made when appointing the editorial board?
• Is the Journal big enough to justify an online peer review system?
• Who should be in charge of the publication platform and for maintaining the website?
• Is the community sensitive to Publication fees? Can you get a grant, for instance from local government/research council?
• If the journal is the official organ of a scholarly society, how do you justify that it is Open Access (i.e. no longer a benefit to the members alone)?

2.3.3.1.2 Choose title

The name of the new Journal often serves as the first signal to its potential target audience that the research community in question now has one more publication outlet. At the same time, however, the name should indicate that this Journal is different from other publishing sources in that same community. For Open Access journals the defining difference may be the mere fact that the Journal is … Open Access! However, this may not always be easy to tell from the title itself. It may be tempting to include the word Open (Access) or Online in the title of an Open Access journal, but this is beginning to look old-fashioned and redundant. Instead, the fact that the Journal is published under the Open Access model should be made clear on the Journal website, including the homepage.

Key considerations:

• Does the name of the Journal clearly reflect the Journal’s content and scope?
• Is the name easy to remember? This is especially important if the Journal’s URL is made up of the name itself, e.g. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.for the journal Global Health Action (see also Section 2.1.1.2 Choose domain/URL)
• Consider also how the name looks as a visual signifier, in a logo, an advertisement, on a billboard, etc. Colors and graphic design may play an important role here.
• Check the name of existing Open Access journals by doing a search in the Directory of Open Access Journals. A complete list of (almost) all scholarly journal titles may be found in Ulrich’s Periodical Directory.
• When devising a name for the Journal, leave out “a”, “an” and “the”. Most online catalogs require that these words are omitted when a title search is performed.
• Make sure the title (supported by its website) signals that this is a scholarly journal and not a popular magazine.
  • Once the Journal is online, don’t forget to register with your National ISSN Centre to obtain an ISSN/e-ISSN (see ADDITIONAL RESOURCES for links in the Nordic countries, and also under ISSN Registration). Note that you have not obtained exclusive rights to the title of the Journal (trademark) just because it has been assigned an ISSN. See Section 2.5.1 Register ISSN.
  • Do you wish to protect the name of the Journal? For ways to obtain exclusive rights to the title, see Section 2.5.3 Register for trademark protection.
  • How does the title appear in an abbreviated form? Is it still recognizable after abbreviation? The editors of some publications require that references (in this case to your Journal) should give full journal titles, and other editors require that references should give abbreviated journal titles. So even if you have chosen a short title it may be subjected to arbitrary abbreviation. For medical journals indexed in Medline the abbreviation is standard.

2.3.3.1.3 Determine type of content

Based upon the type of journal you have decided to publish, you will also need to determine what type of editorial content you will accept for review and publication. The most common types of content for scholarly communications are:

• Original research
• Review articles
• Commentaries
• Letters to the editor
• Book reviews
• Case studies

The type of content you choose to include will have an impact upon your budgeting for the Journal (see Sections 1.5 Create a budget and 5.1.3 Update and report). In particular, different types of content typically vary in length. While an original research article might be 7-10 typeset pages long (depending upon your field), a case report will probably be only 1-3 typeset pages in length.  Costs that are structured according to number of pages (e.g. typesetting) will thus be affected.

To make the budgeting processes easier and to maintain control over costs, consider implementing maximum page lengths for the different types of manuscripts you accept for review and publication.

If you have implemented an article processing fee/publication fee, you might also wish to charge different prices for different types of articles published. Bear in mind that some types of content are typically accepted without charge. Commonly authors of solicited articles are not asked to pay for publication. Review articles are work-intensive and often generate citations for the Journal.  This too will need to be reflected in your budget.

2.3.3.2 Determine peer review policy

Peer review, a well-accepted indicator of quality scholarship, is at the heart of all scholarly journals publishing, including Open Access journals. It refers to the process of subjecting an author’s manuscript to the impartial scrutiny of researchers (peers) in the same field to see if the paper is up to scholarly standards. It forces the author to meet the generally accepted standards of his/her discipline thus preventing the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, and biased or unfounded interpretations.

The Chief Editor, together with the editorial team must agree to a peer review policy. The Journal policy can be:

• Open/transparent – The manuscript need not be blinded when sent out for review, i.e. the reviewer knows who the author is; and the author is told who the reviewer is, or has even him/herself suggested the name.
• Single blind – The manuscript need not be blinded when sent out for review; the reviewer is anonymous to the author but the reviewer knows who the author is.
• Double blind – The manuscript must be blinded when sent out for review. The author is anonymous to the reviewer just as the reviewer is anonymous to the author.
• Two-stage review - Whichever of the methods above you choose to use, those papers that require revision as suggested by the reviewer may be sent back to that same reviewer for him/her to evaluate the manuscript once again after revision. For minor revision only, the editor may check the revised version of the manuscript to spare the reviewer more work.
• One-stage review- The reviewer is involved in the initial review of the manuscript only, i.e. not involved in evaluating the revisions made by the author based on the reviewer’s comments. Rather, the Chief Editor carries the manuscript forward following the initial review.
• Open Peer Commentary – commentaries on published articles (either solicited or unsolicited). Authors are often encouraged to respond to these.

Your choice of policy should be guided by the necessity of avoiding bias towards the work due to: other – perhaps competing – researchers, less prestigious universities or institutions, women, early-career scientists, or simply of people with foreign-sounding names. A policy may also depend on the tradition within the field, or on the Journal’s wish to try innovative ways of speeding up, and making more public, the review process.

Your peer review policy should also include consideration of what types of articles will be reviewed. Even though a particular journal is peer reviewed, an individual article in that journal may not be. Some article types (news items, editorials, etc.) may not have gone through the peer review process.

Both aspects of your peer review policy should be clearly stated on the Journal website, likely under instructions to authors and the aims and scope or description of the Journal. This information is, of course, important to submitting authors, but also to other audiences. Your policies will also be reported by others such as Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory. In Ulrich’s, a special icon indicates a “refereed” (peer-reviewed) journal. For an Open Access journal to be included in DOAJ, it must exercise peer-review or editorial quality control. In Academic Search Premier from EBSCO host, by checking a box, results can be limited to articles from peer reviewed journals, just as in some Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA) databases. (Note that Ulrich’s definition of “refereed” differs from and is more restrictive than that of DOAJ.)

The peer review policy you choose will impact upon how you structure the workflow for the peer review process; see Section 2.3.5 Design peer review workflow.

2.3.3.3 Define output policies

Though most librarians still like to register and index journal articles by their volume number, issue number and page range, Open Access journals do not have to comply with such bibliometrics, especially if the online version of the Journal is not accompanied by a printed edition. There is really no need to wait for a certain number of papers – amounting to a specific number of pages – to collate and paginate an issue. Using a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) (instead of volume, issue and continuing pagination) (see Section 2.4.4 Register for DOIs), an article can be published right after acceptance (with “internal” pagination), thus speeding up the time from submission to publication and thereby increasing the chances of citations. In this way, too, those who have signed up for E-alerts will continuously be reminded of the Journal and probably also note the quick turn-around times of papers, which all helps promote the Journal.

Some Open Access journals do have a printed edition in addition to the online version, often to be able to sell print subscriptions and in this way add another source to the income streams. In that case it may be justified to also publish issues rather than single articles online, but it is by no means necessary.

Key considerations:

• Decide if you want to have volume numbers. If so, it may be practical to have one volume per year, and number the volumes continuously, e.g. 2009: Vol. 1, 2010: Vol. 2 etc. (see Section 2.3.3.3 Define output policies).
• Decide if you want to publish issues. If you choose to go by issues, number them consecutively per volume/year, e.g. Issue 1, Vol. 1, 2009; Issue 2, Vol. 1, 2009; Issue 1, Vol. 2, 2010 etc.
• Register for DOIs whether you choose to publish papers continuously as they become accepted or upon completion of an issue. DOIs are used for identifying content objects in the digital environment, irrespective of volume and issue numbering.
• Even though you choose to publish papers on a continuous basis, papers pertaining to a thematic cluster or series may well be withheld until all articles are publishable and in this way allow for more focused promotion.
• If the Journal is printed, how/where will the printed copies be stored, how will customer services be arranged, including payment function, and how will the issues be distributed to the subscribers?

2.3.3.3.1 Define publication schedule

If you have decided to publish articles in the Journal in issues, you should determine a publication schedule for when these issues will be ready and available online and in print, if applicable. This publication schedule should be clear from the Journal website and the editorial and publishing teams should strive at all times to uphold this schedule.

The publishing team should together determine the publication schedule taking into account the natural ebb and flow of manuscript submissions (e.g. many fields see high levels of submissions right before the summer break and again at the end of the year), the time required for those working with production to manage the proofing process, prepare files and mount them online.

Your publication schedule will be important information when you seek indexing in databases such as ISI (Impact Factor) and Medline (see Section 4.1.6 Work with indexing). These agencies scrutinize publications for regularity and consistency in publication, among other things.

The publication schedule should also be announced in marketing materials. If you offer advertising opportunities, the publication schedule should be included where you post rates and you should define deadlines for submitting files for advertising in relation to the publication schedule.

2.3.3.3.2 Decide size of annual volume

Deciding on the volume of material to be published within the Journal’s fiscal year is important for budgeting costs and income streams (if relevant) for a certain year as well as for planning workloads for those involved.

If the Journal is published with a certain number of issues comprising a certain number of pages, it is fairly easy to budget and plan. In the event that the inflow of papers is better than you have budgeted for and cannot be absorbed by the number of issues planned for the year, an alternative is to reject more papers or, for coming years, to budget for more issues.

Even if articles are published successively as they become accepted you may eventually end up with more than planned. If your business model is based on volunteer work, your main concern will be whether the workload can be absorbed. If your business model is based on publication fees, this situation is fairly easy to scale to, as fees should cover the additional direct costs of publishing more articles.  However, in either case, more papers means, more work! Again, to pull the brakes, rejecting more papers is an alternative.

For a new journal, don’t set goals too high! It does take time to build confidence amongst authors that the Journal is the right publishing outlet for them (see Section 4.5 Ensure impact).

The number of papers you will publish also raises questions about the quality or percieved importance of the manuscripts you choose to publish. While some journals choose to publish only those articles that promise high impact from the highest ranking scientists in the field, others might aim to provide a solid outlet for young researchers, accepting manuscripts that meet the requirements of scientific rigor, but do will not necessarily be highly cited (PLoS One is an example of an Open Access journal that does not aim to achieve a high impact factor). This question becomes particularly pertinent once a journal has achieved a high impact factor because this often leads to increased submissions. Editors and publishers are then faced with a dilemma – will the acceptance of more manuscripts for publication lead to a lower impact factor? At the end of the day, there are no definitive answers and it is up to you to decide to what extent you wish to “play the impact factor game”.

Key considerations:

• How many papers may be expected? Consider the size of the scientific community and competing journals.
• How does the volume influence the budget? Play around with numbers in an excel sheet.
• Consider if publication of issues is better and more rational than publishing articles as they become accepted (see Section 2.3.3.3.1. Define publication schedule).
• What happens if many more – and good – manuscripts are submitted than expected?
• What happens if too few papers are submitted to support the planned publication with regular issues?
• If the Journal offers waivers, or if you invite authors to write an article for the Journal, don’t forget to account for this lack of income in the budget.
• How prestigious should the papers you accept be?

2.3.3.4 Adopt licensing/copyright policy

A regularly overlooked, yet very important step in setting-up a new Open Access journal is to select a copyright and/or licensing policy.

The industry standard for Open Access journals is that the policy should:

1) allow free access to original research; that is, provide access without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees, etc.), AND

2) allow re-use of content, at least for non-commercial/educational purposes.

The easiest and most recommended means of meeting this Open Access standard is to adopt one of the Creative Commons licenses, in particular the CC-BY (the most liberal license, allowing all forms of re-use) or the CC-BY-NC (excludes commercial re-use without permission). Creative Commons licenses are human and machine readable, and universally recognized, making them highly useful. The Creative Commons has a useful tool that allows you to select the license that is most appropriate for your needs.

It is very important that authors and other users of the Journal clearly understand their rights and how they may use the content they find on the Journal website. The Journal’s copyright/licensing policy should be easily located on the Journal website and a statement should be placed in the footer of each article published in the Journal.

2.3.3.5 Adopt possible waiver policy

If your Journal will charge an article processing fee, publication fee, submission fee, etc. consider whether you wish to waive such fees if authors are unable to pay. Most professional Open Access publishers provide waivers in the case of authors from developing countries.

By deciding up front whether you will waive fees and the conditions under which you will do so, you will save yourself unnecessary discussions with authors at a later date.

Waiver policies should not interfere with the peer review process. For example, as part of your waiver policy you might state that requests for waivers should be submitted after final decision to accept or reject a manuscript. Alternatively, you can state that requests for waivers should be submitted to an Editorial Manager or other member of the publishing team who shall not be directly involved in accepting or rejecting manuscripts.

Whatever your waiver policy, it should be transparent to authors and other readers. Ideally it should be clearly stated in the instructions to authors and again in conjunction with any information given about the fees you charge. Alternatively, information about waivers can be included in an online submission system.

If you do adopt a waiver policy, be sure to include a projected number of waivers in the budget for the Journal (see Section 1.5 Create a budget).

2.3.3.6 Adopt other policies

In addition to the policies already noted in the Sections above, it is also important to include a policy for handling complaints as well as any policies that might be common in your specific field. With respect to complaints, be sure to include a statement that includes under what condition complaints may be submitted and to whom, as well as a brief statement on the procedure that will be followed.

Regarding possible discipline-related policies, your team is probably aware of many of these already, having published in other journals in your field. Typical policies might be:

• Conflict of interest
• Protection of animal and human subjects
• Ethical considerations
• Deposition of data

To ensure that you have a complete list of necessary policies, you can consult other journals to identify standards and consider whether these should be followed in the case of your Journal.

2.3.4 Write aims and scope

A full description of the Journal’s aims and scope on the website (and in the printed edition, if any) is a must. The aims & scope constitutes a guide to both authors and readers that outlines what you hope to accomplish with the Journal and the types of papers you would like to publish. Here both readers and authors will find information that will eventually lead them to either dig deeper, submit a paper, or proceed to another journal.

Make sure the aims and scope have a unique “selling point”, i.e. ask yourself the question: What sets the Journal apart from others with regard to research field and publishing model. Why would an author prefer to submit his/her paper to the Journal? Well defined aims & scope helps to attract the right material.

It pays off to clearly define and refine the Journal’s aims & scope in that it will save you a great deal of work when it comes to applying for indexing services, when writing funding applications and for doing promotional work, where this information is key.

The text should be focused and to the point (for text examples, check the links under ADDITIONAL RESOURCES). The fact that the Journal is published under the Open Access model is a key message and should be clearly and unambiguously communicated.

Key considerations:

• What exactly is the aim of the Journal? Editorial focus!
• What is the Journal’s raison d’être? Here the Open Access aspect may be introduced.
• Which area(s) of research does the Journal cover within the entire research field? For clarity, make a bullet list of research areas of special interest to the Journal.
• How does it differ from other journals in the area? Again, the Open Access aspect may be valid.
• Is the Journal intended as a specialist or multidisciplinary journal? In the latter case, stress the suitability of Open Access for such an approach (see also Section 2.3.3.1.1 Determine journal type).
• Is it of importance to state if there is a society or association behind the Journal?
• Which target audiences do the Journal aim to reach? Stress why Open Access is instrumental in fulfilling this goal.
• Which types of articles does the Journal accept, e.g. Original articles, Review articles, Short communications, Letter to the Editor etc.?

2.3.5 Design peer review workflow

One of the greatest challenges for most editors and editorial teams is to achieve rapid review. Two main elements can contribute to a rapid peer review process: effective management of reviewers and a clear workflow. At this stage of setting up your Journal, it is important to address the latter of these which will also make it easier for you to work with reviewers once the Journal has been launched.

Below are presented two different process diagrams describing suggested workflows for a small journal and large journal, respectively.

Small Journal

This flowchart gives an overview of the various steps the review process could include, from author submission to decision and the various roles involved.

A Small journal is here defined as a journal for which the Chief Editor handles the review process herself/himself; sending acceptance letters, assigning reviewers, and keeping track of the entire process. Section editors are not involved.

Author submits ms to Editorial office by post or email, or via the online system

An acknowledgement letter should be sent to the author, to confirm the receipt of the manuscript.

Chief Editor’s first review

The manuscript is checked to see if it meets the scope of the Journal and its formal requirements. If incorrect or unsuitable, the author should be informed and the manuscript filed (or returned if requested) – direct rejection.

Ms rejected

Manuscripts that are not suitable for publication in the Journal are rejected. Rejection letter is sent to the author stating the reason for rejection. Ms is filed.

Ms accepted for review

If the manuscript conforms to the aims and scope of the Journal, and formally abides by the Instructions to Authors it is sent out for review. Depending on the type of paper, it could be accepted immediately for publication (invited Editorial, Book review etc) by the Chief Editor.

Ms checked

Check that the manuscript has been written and styled in accordance with the Journal style; that it carries an abstract (if applicable), keywords, correct reference system etc and check that the correct blinding system has been used; single, double, open. If anything is missing ask author to complete before the manuscript is sent out for review

Chief Editor assigns Reviewers

The manuscript is sent out for review, usually to at least two independent reviewers. Sometimes the authors are requested to suggest reviewers themselves.

Reviewer

The reviewer reads and evaluates the manuscript and eventually sends a review report to the Chief Editor. The time for review can be set to 2-6 weeks depending on the discipline (more time is usually given to papers in the humanities and social sciences). Make sure to provide the reviewer with clear instructions for the work, e.g. outlined in the form of a Review report or a number of questions to be considered.

Chief Editor’s decision

Based on the reviewers’ comments the Chief Editor makes a decision to:

• Accept the manuscript without further revision
• Accept after revision
• Ask authors to resubmit
• Reject

Chief Editor accepts the paper without further revision

An acceptance letter is sent to the author and the final manuscript is forwarded to production.

Chief Editor accepts after revision

The authors are requested to revise in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit and updated version or their manuscript to the Chief Editor. The time for review can be set to 2-8 weeks depending on the discipline and type of additional data, information or argument required.

Resubmission

The authors are requested to make substantial revisions to their manuscript and resubmit for a new evaluation. Back to Submission!

Chief Editor rejects

A rejection letter is sent to the author and the manuscript is archived. Reviewers might be informed about the decision.

Key considerations:

• What review process is applicable for the Journal? See Section 2.3.3.1.1 Determine journal type.
• Single or double blinded?
• How many reviewers does the paper require?
• Should the revised version go back to the reviewer/s?
• How much time should be allowed for reviewing/revising?
• Should reviewers be notified of the final decision?
• Are standard letters to be preferred or does the Journal require personalized letters to authors/reviewers?

Large Journal

The following flowchart should give an overview of the various steps the review process could include for a large journal, from author submit to decision and the various roles involved.

A Large journal is here defined as a journal for which the Chief Editor is assisted by Section Editors (could also be Co- or Associated Editors).

Author submits ms to Editorial office by post or email, or via the online system

An acknowledgement letter should be sent to the author, to confirm the receipt of the manuscript.

Chief Editor’s first review

The manuscript should be checked to see if it meets the scope of the Journal and its formal requirements. If incorrect or unsuitable, the author should be informed and the paper filed (or returned if requested) – direct reject.

Ms rejected

Manuscript is not suitable for publication in the Journal. Rejection letter to be sent to author stating the reason for rejection. Manuscript filed.

Ms accepted for review

If the manuscript conforms to the aims and scope of the Journal, and formally abides by the Instructions to Authors it can be sent out for review. Depending on the type of paper it is, the manuscript might also be immediately accepted for publication (invited Editorial, Book review etc) by the Chief Editor.

Ms checked

Check that the manuscript has been written and styled in accordance with the Journal style; that it carries an abstract (if applicable), keywords, correct reference system, etc. and check that the correct blinding system has been used; single, double, open. If anything is missing, ask the author to complete before the manuscript is sent out for review

Chief Editor assigns Section Editor

The Editor assigns a Section Editor to see follow the manuscript through the complete review process and return with a recommendation or decision.

Section Editor assigns Reviewers

The manuscript is sent out for review, usually to at least two independent reviewers. Sometimes the authors are requested to suggest reviewers themselves.

Reviewer

The reviewer reads and evaluates the paper and eventually sends a review report to the Section editor. The time for review can be set to 2-6 weeks depending on the discipline (more time is usually given to papers in the humanities and social sciences). Make sure you provide the reviewer with clear instructions for the work, e.g. outlined in the form of a Review report or a number of questions to be considered.

Section Editor’s recommendation

Based on the reviewers’ comments, the Section Editor makes a recommendation to the Chief Editor to:

• Accept the paper without further revision
• Accept after revision
• Ask author(s) to resubmit
• Reject

Chief Editor accepts the paper without further revision

An acceptance letter is sent to the author and the final manuscript is forwarded to production.

Chief Editor accepts after revision

The authors are requested to revise in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit an updated version or their paper to the Chief Editor. The time for review can be set to 2-8 weeks depending on the discipline and type of additional data, information or argument required.

Resubmit

The authors are requested to make substantial revisions to their manuscript and resubmit for a new evaluation. Back to Submission!

Editor reject

Rejection letter is sent to the author and the manuscript is archived. Reviewers might be informed about the decision.

Key considerations:

• What review process is applicable for the Journal? See Section 2.3.3.1.1 Determine journal type.
• Single or double blinded?
• How many reviewers does the paper require?
• Should the revised version go back to the reviewer/s?
• How much time should be allowed for reviewing/revising?
• Should reviewers be notified of the final decision?
• Are standard letters to be preferred or does the Journal require personalized letters to authors/reviewers?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7