Scope Gatekeeping
Confirm topic fit before review invitation to avoid unnecessary cycle waste.
Editors Guidelines
Editors Guidelines for Consistent Scientific Decision Making
Apply scope, rigor, and ethics criteria consistently across all inflammation submissions.
IJIR editors are expected to maintain decision consistency, transparent communication, and policy aligned workflow control. Editorial guidance focuses on fair evaluation, practical timeline management, and defensible decision rationale grounded in manuscript evidence quality.
Fair
Evaluation
Consistent
Criteria
Timely
Decisions
Clear
Rationale
Core Expectations for Handling Editors
Strong editorial practice combines scientific judgment with process discipline and clear communication.
Reviewer Calibration
Select balanced reviewers with relevant expertise and no disqualifying conflicts.
Decision Clarity
Issue concise, evidence based decisions that guide constructive author revision.
Decision Quality Signals
These controls improve consistency and reduce avoidable editorial variance.
Evidence Traceability
Major recommendations should reference clear methodological and results based observations. For this requirement, clear documentation reduces ambiguity in methodological interpretation and protects quality without adding unnecessary delay.
Conflict Disclosure
Declare potential conflicts early and recuse where impartiality could be questioned. In this requirement, stronger reporting discipline prevents avoidable back and forth during technical clarification and helps keep reviewer feedback specific and actionable.
Response Governance
Ensure reviewer comments and editorial synthesis remain aligned with policy criteria. When this requirement is specified precisely, communication quality improves across authors, reviewers, and editors, and accepted manuscripts reach publication with fewer corrections.
Timeline Stewardship
Monitor review pacing and escalation needs to maintain dependable decision windows. Detailed treatment of this requirement gives reviewers a stable basis for evidence checks while preserving scientific transparency in the published record.
Process Documentation
Clear internal notes improve continuity across revision rounds and editorial handoffs. Operational clarity in this requirement supports fair comparison across competing submissions while reinforcing trust in editorial independence and rigor.
Author Communication
Direct, respectful guidance improves revision quality and reduces repeated clarification loops. A robust description of this requirement strengthens confidence in claims, limits, and endpoint mapping and supports predictable workflow timing for authors and editors.
Additional Practical Guidance for Editors Guidelines
The points below add operational detail for editor handling quality and decision discipline, helping authors, reviewers, and editors keep decisions consistent from first screening to final publication.
Compliance Traceability
Documented Compliance Traceability controls in editor handling quality and decision discipline improve comparability across submissions and revision rounds. When teams apply this early, reviewer comments become more specific, revision requests are easier to action, and production handoff has fewer compliance surprises.
Method Transparency
Practical Method Transparency checkpoints for editor handling quality and decision discipline support faster, better documented editorial reasoning. The benefit is measurable: fewer avoidable queries, better response quality in revision letters, and more reliable metadata at acceptance.
Editorial consistency is a quality system. It protects fairness for authors and reliability for readers.
Editor Support Contact
For operational questions on guideline application, contact [email protected].
