For editors
Editor Guidelines
How an editor of the Journal of Current Scientific Research takes a manuscript from arrival to decision — what to settle at screening, how to choose and manage reviewers, what to weigh in a decision, and the judgments a multidisciplinary journal asks for that a general editorial framework does not cover.
This page is the operational side of the Editorial Policies, which state the framework in full.
- Review model
- Single-blind by default
- On request
- Double-blind review
- License
- CC BY 4.0
The editor's role
AccountabilityAn editor is accountable for a decision that is defensible on the record: the manuscript, the reviews, and the reasoning that connects them. Reviewers advise; the handling editor decides.
Editorial decisions are independent of any fee, service, membership or role. An author's ability to pay, their institution, their nationality and their standing in the field are not grounds for any decision.
Members assess submissions in their own subject, appoint and evaluate reviewers, and make or recommend the decision on the manuscripts they handle. A member who has an interest in a submission is replaced for that manuscript.
Joining the board
Researchers who hold a subject the journal publishes in, and who can handle manuscripts to the standard described here, are welcome to write to the editorial office with an ORCID iD and the subjects they can assess.
The current board
Members, their institutions and recorded subject expertise are on Editorial Board.
Initial screening
Before reviewAll submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Screening establishes six things; where one fails, say which, so the author can act on the response.
- ScopeThe work makes a substantive and assessable scientific contribution. All scientific disciplines are eligible; absence from an illustrative subject list is not a reason to decline.
- Reviewable expertiseCompetent editorial handling and appropriate independent review can be arranged. Where they cannot, the manuscript does not proceed to external review, and the author is told promptly rather than left waiting.
- Article typeThe manuscript is what the submitted category says it is, and is within that category's limits.
- DeclarationsApplicable ethics approval or exemption, informed consent or approved waiver, trial registration, data and code availability, funding, competing interests, prior dissemination and AI use are present and specific.
- Claims against evidenceThe conclusions do not exceed what the described method can establish, and no mechanism is asserted that the design cannot distinguish from alternatives.
- Methodological adequacy at face valueThe design can answer the question asked, and the reporting is complete enough for a reviewer to assess it.
A manuscript outside scope is declined promptly and clearly. Returning it for revision it cannot pass helps nobody.
Selecting and managing reviewers
The panelSingle-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Work that crosses fields usually needs more than one kind of expertise. A study evaluated only from one side of its subject produces reviews that miss opposite halves of the same manuscript. Aim for a panel that covers the method, the domain, and — where the analysis carries the claim — the statistics.
Arrange a suitably qualified handling editor as well as external subject-matter reviewers. A submission does not proceed when competent handling and review cannot be arranged.
No shared institution, recent collaboration, co-authorship or funding relationship with any author, and no commercial interest in a product, material or system under evaluation. Author-suggested reviewers may be used, but never as the whole panel, and their independence is checked like any other.
Reviewers declare conflicts on accepting. An undeclared conflict discovered later invalidates the review.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers. Check the manuscript, the file properties and the supplementary material before it is sent.
Reviews are confidential. Discourteous or personal comments are returned to the reviewer or withheld from the author, and the substance is conveyed in the editor's own words.
Reaching a decision
Weighing the reviewsEditorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Reviews are weighed, not counted. Where two reviewers disagree, identify whether they disagree about a fact in the manuscript, about the interpretation of a result, or about whether the question matters — the three call for different responses, and only the first is settled by rereading the manuscript. A third opinion is sought where the disagreement is substantive and the editor cannot resolve it from the evidence.
- State the decision plainlyAt the start of the letter, before the reasoning.
- Give the reasoning in your own wordsNot merely the reviews attached. An author should be able to see how the reviews led to the decision.
- Separate the essential from the optionalWhere revision is invited, say which points must be addressed and which are suggestions.
- Give a declined manuscript something to learn fromThe reason, at a level of detail the author can act on, including where the work might belong instead if the issue is fit rather than quality.
Sound negative results
Results that did not confirm the expected outcome are considered on the same basis as positive ones, provided the method is sound and the reporting is complete. A null result is not a weak paper.
Work from established fields
A result is not more publishable here for being unusual for the journal, and not disadvantaged because it comes from an established field.
Judgments this journal asks for
Multidisciplinary handling05.1
Legibility across fields
Where a submission sits between disciplines, look for the argument to be legible to a reader trained in the neighboring one. Interdisciplinary connections should be clear, but individual manuscripts need not cross disciplinary boundaries. It is not a reason to decline sound work that is merely specialized.
05.2
Claims and mechanism
Distinguish what the study measured from what the manuscript concludes. An observed difference does not by itself establish causality or a proposed mechanism. Where a mechanistic claim is made, satisfy yourself that the reviews addressed whether the evidence distinguishes it from plausible alternatives, and ask directly where they have not.
05.3
Interdisciplinary combinations
Adding unrelated topics or terminology from another field does not establish a contribution. Ask what the combination does that either field alone could not, and whether the methods are appropriate to the question rather than merely available.
05.4
Emerging areas
A topic's novelty does not by itself establish scientific value or justify a claim. Arrange specialist assessment where the study requires additional methodological, ethical or disciplinary expertise — because of what the study does, not because of what its field is called.
05.5
Ethics and approvals
Where ethical approval, consent, trial registration, an environmental permit or a safety approval is missing, unclear or inconsistent with the described method, resolve it before review rather than after. Where a concern about research integrity arises at any stage, refer it to the editorial office rather than handling it in correspondence with the author.
Conduct, conflicts and confidentiality
ConstraintsA submitted manuscript is confidential. It is not shared, discussed outside the review, or used in the editor's own work.
An editor with a competing interest in a manuscript hands it to another editor and takes no further part, including access to its reviews and decision.
An independent editor handles the manuscript. The author-editor has no editorial-role access to reviewer identities, confidential deliberations or handling decisions, and takes no part in the assessment. Normal author-side decision letters and author-visible reviewer reports are provided through the usual correspondence channel.
Editors must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with editorial assessment. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Appeals are considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. Do not handle an appeal against your own decision.
Referred to the editorial office and handled under COPE guidance, with the author and, where appropriate, the institution given the chance to respond.
Where a manuscript cannot be progressed — a reviewer has not reported, a specialist cannot be found — tell the author where it stands rather than letting the silence stand for a decision.
Editing for this journal
Editorial officeResearchers working across all scientific disciplines are welcome to offer to handle manuscripts. Write to the editorial office with your ORCID iD and the subjects you can assess.
Published by Open Access Pub. ISSN 2766-8681 (electronic). Crossref DOI prefix 10.14302. Articles are published open access under CC BY 4.0; authors retain copyright. Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Editorial decisions are independent of any fee, service, membership or role. Editorial office: [email protected].