Editorial Responsibilities
Editors assess scope fit, select qualified reviewers, and make evidence-based decisions. Clear feedback improves manuscript quality and author experience.
Workflow Expectations
Maintain timely handling of submissions and ensure consistent decision criteria across manuscripts.
Initial Assessment
Check scope, ethics, and methodological clarity
Reviewer Selection
Assign experts in AMR and related methods
Decision
Provide clear rationale and revision guidance
Confidentiality and Conflicts
Maintain confidentiality and disclose conflicts of interest. Recuse yourself when impartiality may be compromised.
Decision Criteria and Escalation
Recommend acceptance only when evidence supports conclusions and methods are reproducible. If reviewer reports conflict or ethical concerns arise, consult the editorial office and request additional review when needed.
Communication Standards
Decision letters should clearly distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions. Transparent, respectful communication improves author experience and maintains journal credibility.
Ethics and Data Checks
Editors should confirm that ethics approvals, data availability statements, and conflict disclosures are present. If data integrity concerns arise, pause review and consult the editorial office.
Reviewer Management
Monitor review timelines and follow up when delays occur. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest, reassign the manuscript promptly to maintain fairness and efficiency.
Consistency Across Decisions
Apply consistent standards across manuscripts to ensure fairness and protect the journal's reputation. Document key decision factors so authors understand the rationale.
Conflict Management
Disclose any conflicts related to a submission and recuse yourself when needed. This protects editorial integrity and maintains author trust.
Handling Assignments Responsibly
Editors should accept manuscripts only within their expertise and decline when conflicts of interest or time constraints exist. Prompt handling helps authors receive timely decisions and supports the journal's commitment to clear communication.
When revisions are requested, editors should outline specific, actionable points and verify that ethical and data transparency requirements are met before final decisions.
Editors should encourage reviewers to focus on methodological rigor, data transparency, and clinical relevance rather than requesting unrelated experiments. Balanced guidance helps authors revise effectively and preserves reviewer time.
Use clear decision categories and avoid conditional acceptances without specific requirements.
Escalate complex ethics questions to the editorial office promptly.
Support Excellence in AMR Publishing
Editors shape the quality and reputation of the journal through fair, rigorous decisions.
