What are the typical criteria for an editor position?
These would be:
• Candidate should have minimum of Ph.D. degree.
• Expertise and experience in the specialist field related to the journal.
• Publication record of a number of articles and /or books (usually in / related to the specialist field).
• Being a reviewer for an international peer reviewed journal.
• Enthusiasm to undertake the Editor role, but ensuring recognition of all aspects of the reality of the role and the work involved
What is the main role and responsibility of a journal Editor?
The key role of a journal editor is to promote scholarship in the specialist field associated with the journal, whilst also promoting the journal as the best journal to publish in. For any journal the editor will need to encourage new and established authors to submit articles and set up a reliable panel of expert reviewers. Editors are also responsible for offering feedback to reviewers when required and ensure that any feedback to authors is constructive.
In terms of responsibilities
• An editor should endeavor to be a leader in the specific field of practice underpinning journal content as it helps the journal development, presence and standing within the international community.
• An editor should also familiarize themselves with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors’. This has a large resource on the topic of ethical conduct of journal editors, authors and reviewers.
• Depending on how the journal is managed and how it is structured, an Editor may have to make all the decisions regarding which articles to accept or reject for publication. However, many journals will have Associate Editors, Assistant Editors or Section Editors to help them with making those important
decisions. For example, any decision involving unethical practice, will often involve the publisher or their representative alongside the Editor and a Section Editor who has discovered the issue.
• As an editor, you will have three or four groups of people to contact on a regular basis: a) the publisher, b) the authors c) the reviewers and d) in some journals direct contact with the production team who manage the publication side of the journal. This latter group will work with the editor to
agree which articles to place in each edition, ensure that the Editor does not use more than the agreed number of pages per issue (especially if paper based) and send editor information concerning all articles in their various stages of the editorial process. The Production team member dedicated to that Editor may also be responsible for communicating with authors and reviewers directly.
What is an Editorial Board?
An Editorial Board is primarily made up of a team of individuals that work directly with the Editor to develop the journal and promote new initiatives. Members of the Board may also take responsibility for key activities linked to the journal, for example the Book review editor or Section Editor (such as Section Editor for Systematic Reviews). The Editorial Board normally appoints a chairperson, who could be one of the board members or could also be the Publisher. When there are meetings, either face to face, teleconferences or Skype, the Chairperson would manage the agenda and the meeting of the Editorial Board. Editorial Board members are chosen for their expertise in key areas related to the journal or chosen for their international presence in the field. There are instances where excellent long-standing reviewers can also be asked to join the Editorial Board. They are normally also from the same expert field as the journal topic. Depending on the roles and responsibilities set by the publisher, the Editor typically reports directly to the Editorial Board. A journal’s Editorial Board normally undergoes a complete renewal after a set period determined by the Editor and Publisher (three years is an average time). This will involve removing some individuals, inviting others, and renewing some existing members for another term. It is important when inviting a Board member that this issue of term of office is included in the invitation letter to avoid any misunderstandings that can arise.
Ethics topics to consider when publishing
Duties of Editors
1. Fair play and editorial independence: Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin,
citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
2. Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of
handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
4. Publication decisions: The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in- Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published,based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5. Involvement and cooperation in investigations: Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be
looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. AP-SMART editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or another note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.
Duties of Reviewers
1. Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavor. AP-SMART shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
2. Promptness: Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
3. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor- in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
4. Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
5. Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should
also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should
immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the
authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Duties of the Publisher
1. Handling of unethical publishing behavior: In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the
publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
2. Access to journal content: The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.
Chief Editor IQRJ
Prof. Dr. Atanga D Funwie
B.Sc. Dip. MSc. MBA. Ph.D.
Academic & Research Coordinator Kesmonds Research Institute Cameroon, Kenya, Uganda, and Somalia.
Chairperson African University Directory.
Postgraduate Research Director Green Hope University Mogadishu.