Editor in chief
The manuscript is to be subjected to various opinions of editors which may be contradictory therefore to settle this matter; the concluding decision is made by the editor in chief. The selection of the editor on chief in based on their wider exposure and expertise in the field.
Every individual has the right to give their suggestions but authority rests with the editor in chief.
The purpose of an editorial board is that we invite proposition from different members who have some background knowledge relevant to the journal topics. Thus each member is expected to take keen interest in review and not just rely on the editor in chief. Peer review requires collaboration and cooperation. When the manuscript gets reviewed by multiple editors it is likely to improve through the variety of recommendations given. Editors need to scan the document for aspects of plagiarism before it is handled by the editor in chief.
The manuscript is to be evaluated on the standard of content it presents. There is no room for affinity for author in any case. Reviews made should not consider variables like gender, religion or ethnic origin of the author because this could lead to undue favoritism, which is certainly not desired in journal review.
All members in the editorial board need to assure that the manuscript sent for peer review remains safe while it is being reviewed. The information presented should be carefully handled so it is not leaked before it is published.
Approval from the Author
Once the manuscript is approved by the editorial board, the author would be contacted. Publication of the document will only be processed when the author permits it. In case the author permits someone to use part of the material from the manuscript, a written consent must be given.
The process of peer review is carefully done to ensure the quality control mechanism which means to check that the paper fulfills the overall criteria of the journal. Moreover the reviewers are to verify that proper referencing is provided since there is absolutely no room for plagiarized work. Each reviewer is supposed to look for the authenticity of the paper before it goes to the editorial board.
In case any reviewer thinks that they would not be able to provide timely feedback; immediate notification for availability needs to be given so that the review process is not lagged unnecessarily. In a situation where a reviewer feels being misfit for the recommended task, a frank disapproval would be much better than prolonging the process of review.
No Personal Favors
It is against the policy of the journal to favour any author on the basis of personal association and affection. Professional spirit is desired to be maintained throughout the process of publication of a manuscript. Hence judgments are based on objective criteria where merit is the sole fulfillment for publication of paper.
If a reviewer feels that the manuscript is not according to the requirement of the journal and hence does not get approved. The reason for rejection ought to be explicitly stated because we discourage unnecessary criticism. Judgments are supposed to be based upon an objective criterion that is impartial in nature.