The SCICONX Journal of Endocrine and Diabetic Health (JEDH) places great value on the expertise, ethical judgment, and leadership of its editorial team. Editors play a vital role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and reputation of the journal. The following guidelines are designed to assist Editors, Associate Editors, and Section Editors in managing manuscripts efficiently, fairly, and transparently.

1. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are entrusted with safeguarding the journal’s mission:
to publish ethical, high-quality, scientifically rigorous research in endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolic health.

Their responsibilities include:

• Overseeing the peer-review process
• Ensuring timely handling of manuscripts
• Maintaining impartiality and confidentiality
• Upholding publication ethics
• Guiding authors and reviewers throughout the editorial workflow

2. Initial Manuscript Evaluation

Upon submission, Editors should:

2.1 Conduct a Preliminary Screening

Check for:

• Alignment with the journal’s aim and scope
• Originality and scientific relevance
• Ethical compliance (IRB approval, consent, animal research ethics)
• Basic manuscript formatting and completeness
• Potential plagiarism (via similarity checks)

2.2 Immediate Decisions

Editors may:

• Send the manuscript forward for peer review
• Request technical corrections
• Reject submissions that do not meet minimal editorial standards

Desk rejections should be communicated courteously, with constructive reasons whenever possible.

3. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Editors must ensure a robust, fair, and unbiased review process.

3.1 Selecting Reviewers

Choose reviewers who:

• Possess expertise in the manuscript’s subject area
• Have no conflicts of interest with the authors
• Demonstrate strong academic experience and ethical conduct
• Provide balanced, evidence-based feedback

3.2 Inviting Reviewers

Invitations should include:

• Manuscript title and abstract
• Expected review time frame
• Confidentiality agreement
• Conflict-of-interest declaration

A minimum of two independent reviewers must be invited for each manuscript.

4. Managing the Peer-Review Process

4.1 Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind system:

• Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities
• Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities

Editors must ensure anonymity is maintained throughout the process.

4.2 Ensuring Timeliness

• Follow up with reviewers who exceed deadlines
• Offer extensions when appropriate
• Reassign the manuscript if reviewers withdraw

4.3 Evaluating Review Reports

Editors should assess:

• Quality, clarity, and depth of reviewer comments
• Scientific validity of recommendations
• Whether comments are constructive and respectful

5. Editorial Decision-Making

After receiving reviewer feedback, Editors may decide:

• Accept as is
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Resubmit for review
• Reject

5.1 Ensuring Fairness

Decisions must be:

• Evidence-based
• Free from personal, institutional, or ideological bias
• Consistent with journal policies

5.2 Communicating Decisions

Editors must:

• Provide clear reasoning for the decision
• Include anonymized reviewer comments
• Offer authors specific guidance for revision
• Maintain a professional and supportive tone

6. Handling Revised Manuscripts

Editors must:

• Review authors’ point-by-point responses
• Check whether all reviewer concerns are adequately addressed
• Decide whether re-review is necessary
• Verify improvements in quality, clarity, and scientific rigor

7. Ethical Oversight

Editors must uphold the highest ethical standards in accordance with COPE, ICMJE, and SCICONX ethics guidelines.

Key Responsibilities Include:

7.1 Plagiarism and Similarity Checks

• All manuscripts must undergo plagiarism screening
• Editors must evaluate flagged similarities carefully
• Any suspected misconduct must be escalated to the Editor-in-Chief

7.2 Conflicts of Interest

Editors should:

• Decline handling manuscripts involving their colleagues, institutions, or collaborators
• Declare any potential conflicts to the Editor-in-Chief
• Ensure reviewer conflicts are disclosed and avoided

7.3 Human and Animal Ethics

Manuscripts involving human subjects must include:

• IRB/ethics committee approval
• Informed consent statements

Animal studies must follow international welfare guidelines.

7.4 Research Misconduct

Editors must watch for:

• Fabrication or falsification of data
• Manipulated images
• Duplicate publication
• Redundant or salami slicing of data
• Unethical authorship practices

Any concerns should be investigated confidentially and transparently.

8. Confidentiality Requirements

Editors should:

• Treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents
• Not share content with anyone outside the editorial process
• Not use unpublished data or ideas for personal research
• Store review files securely

9. Communication Etiquette

Editors are expected to maintain:

• Professional, respectful communication with authors and reviewers
• Prompt responses to inquiries
• Neutral and supportive tone, even in rejections
• Clear and structured feedback

10. Editorial Integrity and Impartiality

Editors must:

• Avoid favoring certain institutions, countries, or author groups
• Ensure diversity in reviewer selection
• Promote transparency in decision-making
• Uphold the journal’s commitment to inclusivity and scientific fairness

11. Post-Acceptance Responsibilities

Once a manuscript is accepted, Editors must:

• Ensure that final manuscripts meet formatting guidelines
• Confirm that authors have submitted all necessary files (figures, tables, supplementary data)
• Collaborate with the production team on proofreading and corrections
• Approve the final galley proofs before publication

12. Editorial Meetings and Continuous Improvement

Editors are encouraged to participate in:

• Regular editorial board meetings
• Policy discussions and journal development activities
• Reviewer training and quality improvement initiatives
• Development of special issues or theme-based editions

Feedback from editors helps shape the journal’s long-term vision and standards.

13. Removal or Resignation of Editors

Editors may resign voluntarily or be relieved of duties if they:

• Fail to follow journal ethics
• Consistently delay manuscript handling
• Demonstrate bias or unprofessional conduct
• Engage in misconduct or conflict of interest violations

SCICONX Publishing reserves the right to review and update editorial appointments periodically.

14. Contact and Support

Editors may reach the administrative team for assistance with:

• Reviewer identification
• Manuscript tracking
• Ethical concerns
• Technical issues
• Policy clarification

✉️ editor.jedh@sciconxjournals.com