Guidelines for Editors

Editors bear the critical responsibility of serving as stewards of the scholarly record, ensuring that decisions about manuscripts are grounded solely in the merits of the research, free from any discrimination, bias, or undue infl uence. They must uphold transparency in editorial workfl ows, ensuring fairness and clarity at every stage—from submission through publication. JPSR editors should ensure that peer review is conducted rigorously, confi dentially, and within reasonable timelines, safeguarding the trust of authors, reviewers, and readers alike. Editorial decisions should be made impartially, refl ecting COPE’s commitment to fairness and integrity. Open lines of communication with institutional stakeholders, including funders or research institutions, are essential in managing ethical concerns consistently and responsibly.
Editorial independence is paramount. While JPSR editors collaborate with publishers, special issues, and promotional content, fi nal decisions regarding manuscript eligibility and content selection must rest entirely with the editor. This ensures that ethical standards are never compromised by commercial interests. Where guest editors are employed, especially in commissioned pieces or industry-funded supplements, the primary editor must clearly disclose the relevant policies and oversee their proper implementation. The JPSR editor retains the authority to reject any publication that fails to comply with the journal’s integrity or disclosure standards. This safeguarding aligns with COPE’s Core Practices on confl icts of interest, maintaining scholarly objectivity and public confi dence in the publication.
JPSR Editors are also responsible for fostering constructive and open academic debate. When correspondence pertains to specifi c published works, JPSR editors should invite original authors to respond. Even when authors choose not to respond, editors must evaluate the merit of the comments and weigh the benefi ts of constructive debate. Appeals mechanisms should be clearly defi ned and made accessible. If an author submits new information or evidence, reconsideration of editorial decisions may be warranted—but overturning a decision without substantive justifi cation should be avoided. Editors should mediate all communications in appeal processes and ensure their fi nal decision is defi nitive and transparently communicated.
In the interest of preserving the integrity of the published record, JPSR editors must have mechanisms in place for issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary. They should encourage authors and readers to report errors that could affect data interpretation or the overall conclusions of a paper. When such errors arise, JPSR editors must collaborate with authors and publishers to issue prompt and clear corrections. Corrections should be distinct from retractions or formal notices
of concern, should be freely accessible, and must be indexed and cross-linked to the original article. Where errors fundamentally undermine the validity of the research, retractions may be appropriate. These practices not only uphold research integrity, but they also align with COPE’s recommendations on correcting the scholarly record when errors or misconduct are identifi ed.
JPSR editors should actively engage with COPE’s array of resources to guide their ethical practices. They should follow COPE guidelines to core practices—which cover managing misconduct allegations, confl icts of interest, editorial transparency, peer review integrity, and post-publication corrections—as well as fl owcharts, case archives, sample letters, webinars, and an audit tool for continual journal improvement. When faced with diffi cult ethics cases, editors can consult the COPE Forum for collegial advice and shared experiences. COPE’s resources help ensure that editorial workfl ows are robust, defensible, and aligned with best practice. By integrating COPE guidance into journal policies, JPSR editors demonstrate their commitment to the highest ethical standards while reinforcing trust in the publication process.