Editor Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and expectations for IJHA Editorial Board members in anatomical science publishing.
Shaping Anatomical Research Excellence
As a member of the IJHA Editorial Board, you play a pivotal role in maintaining the scientific rigor, educational value, and ethical integrity of the journal. These guidelines outline your responsibilities, decision-making framework, and communication standards.
Journal at a Glance
ISSN: 2577-2279 | DOI prefix: 10.14302/issn.2577-2279 | License: CC BY 4.0 | Open access publishing
IJHA uses single-blind peer review with typical editorial decisions in 4-6 weeks for complete submissions.
Editors serve as the primary gatekeepers of scientific quality for IJHA. Your fundamental duties include:
- Evaluate assigned manuscripts for scientific validity, methodological rigor, and anatomical significance
- Assess alignment with IJHA scope: gross anatomy, histology, neuroanatomy, developmental anatomy, clinical anatomy
- Select and invite qualified peer reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant anatomical discipline
- Ensure all potential conflicts of interest are identified and appropriately managed
- Synthesize reviewer feedback into constructive, actionable editorial decisions
- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript contents and reviewer identities
- Uphold COPE guidelines and IJHA editorial policies at all stages of evaluation
- Respond to author queries and appeals in a professional, timely manner
When a manuscript is assigned to you by the Editor-in-Chief, follow this workflow:
- Initial Assessment (48 hours): Review the submission for scope fit and basic quality. If clearly outside scope or fundamentally flawed, recommend desk rejection with justification.
- Conflict Check: Declare any personal, financial, or institutional conflicts with the authors or research topic. Recuse yourself if objectivity could be compromised.
- Reviewer Identification: Identify 3-5 potential reviewers with relevant expertise in gross anatomy, histology, neuroanatomy, developmental anatomy, or clinical anatomy.
- Reviewer Invitation: Send invitations via ManuscriptZone. If initial invitees decline, promptly identify alternatives to maintain timeline.
- Monitor Progress: Track reviewer response times. Send reminders for overdue reviews. Escalate persistent delays to the editorial office.
- Decision Synthesis: After receiving reviews, synthesize feedback and formulate your editorial recommendation with detailed justification.
Selecting appropriate reviewers is critical to maintaining publication quality. Consider the following:
Anatomical Expertise
Match reviewers to the manuscript's anatomical focus: gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, histology, embryology, or clinical anatomy. Regional expertise matters for specialized studies.
Methodological Expertise
For manuscripts with specialized techniques (3D imaging, plastination, virtual dissection), include at least one reviewer with appropriate technical experience.
Educational Expertise
For anatomy education manuscripts, include reviewers with medical education experience who can evaluate pedagogical soundness and implementation feasibility.
Clinical Perspective
For clinical anatomy papers, consider including a reviewer from the relevant surgical or radiological specialty to evaluate clinical applicability.
After receiving peer reviews, you must formulate a recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief. Available decision categories:
| Decision | Criteria | Author Action |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Manuscript meets all standards; no or trivial revisions needed | Proceed to production |
| Minor Revision | Manuscript is sound but requires clarifications or minor improvements | Revise within 2 weeks; no re-review needed |
| Major Revision | Significant issues identified but potentially addressable with substantial revision | Revise within 6 weeks; will undergo re-review |
| Reject | Fundamental flaws in design, methodology, or scope alignment; or insufficient novelty | May resubmit as new submission if fundamentally restructured |
Weighing Conflicting Reviews
When reviewers disagree significantly, do not simply average their recommendations. Critically evaluate each reviewer's arguments, consider requesting an additional review if needed, and provide clear editorial justification for your final recommendation.
Professional, timely communication is essential to editorial excellence:
- Respond to new manuscript assignments within 48 hours
- Send reviewer reminders promptly when reviews become overdue
- Submit your editorial recommendation within 10 business days of receiving all reviews
- Ensure decision letters are constructive, specific, and respectful—even for rejected manuscripts
- Direct complex ethical concerns or appeals to the Editor-in-Chief for adjudication
Editors must be vigilant for potential ethical issues during evaluation:
- Verify that appropriate institutional approval is documented for cadaveric studies
- Ensure proper informed consent documentation for imaging studies involving living subjects
- Flag any concerns about data integrity, image manipulation, or potential plagiarism
- Verify use of Terminologia Anatomica and appropriate anatomical nomenclature
- Refer to COPE flowcharts when ethical concerns arise during review
Questions for the Editorial Office?
Our team is available to support you with any manuscript handling queries, technical issues, or policy clarifications.
Contact Editorial Office
