Editorial responsibility
For Editors
What an editor of the Journal of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology is responsible for, from first sight of a manuscript to the decision that closes it.
These responsibilities follow the journal’s editorial policies; where the two are read together, the policies govern.
The sequence
Handling a submission
- 01Screening. Establish that the manuscript is within the journal’s remit, that it is complete, and that the required declarations and approvals are present. All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
- 02Reviewer selection. Invite reviewers whose expertise matches the claims being made, checking that none has a competing interest with the authors or the work. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
- 03Assessment. Read the reports against the manuscript rather than counting recommendations, and weigh whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.
- 04Decision. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Give authors the reasoning, and make clear what a revision would need to address.
- 05Revision and close. Check that a revised manuscript answers the points raised, and record the basis of the final decision.
The standard applied
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Experimental models establish mechanism and plausibility. Demonstrated clinical benefit is established separately, in studies conducted in patients, and the journal keeps that distinction visible in how findings are reported.
An editor asks for a claim to be brought back to the evidence rather than allowing a model result to stand as a clinical one.
Obligations
Confidentiality, conflicts and integrity
- Confidentiality
- A submitted manuscript is confidential. Its content, and the identity of its reviewers, are not discussed outside the handling of that submission.
- Double-blind review
- When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
- Competing interests
- An editor with a personal, professional or financial interest in a submission declares it and takes no part in its assessment; the manuscript is reassigned. An editor’s own submission is handled independently by another editor.
- Fair treatment
- Manuscripts are assessed on their content. The authors’ country, institution, seniority or prior relationship with the journal plays no part in the decision, and decisions remain independent of fees, membership, editorial roles and paid services.
- Integrity concerns
- Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts or ethics failures are referred to the editorial office, which follows COPE guidance. Concerns are resolved before a decision is issued.
- Use of AI
- Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Support
Where to take a question
The editorial office assists with reviewer tracking, author correspondence and the preparation of decision letters, and is the first point of contact for an integrity concern.
The policies an editor applies are published in full and are the reference for any question of governance.
Journal of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology · ISSN 2641-7669 · Published by Open Access Pub.