Guide for Editors

Guide for Editors

Editors play a central role in maintaining the academic quality, ethical standards, editorial independence, and scholarly credibility of journals published by Ptolemy Scientific Research Press (PSR Press). The editor’s responsibility is to ensure that every manuscript is handled fairly, confidentially, efficiently, and in accordance with the journal’s aims, scope, peer-review policy, and publication ethics.

Editors are expected to make decisions based on academic merit, scientific quality, originality, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field. They should protect the integrity of the editorial process and ensure that authors, reviewers, and editorial staff are treated with professionalism and respect.

Editorial Responsibility

Editors are responsible for managing manuscripts submitted to the journal and for ensuring that each submission receives appropriate editorial consideration. Their responsibilities include assessing manuscript suitability, selecting qualified reviewers, evaluating review reports, making editorial recommendations or decisions, and ensuring that accepted manuscripts meet the standards of the journal.

Editors should ensure that:

• manuscripts are assessed according to the journal’s aims and scope;
• editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit;
• the peer-review process is fair and independent;
• reviewer comments are considered carefully;
• conflicts of interest are avoided or properly managed;
• ethical concerns are addressed promptly;
• accepted manuscripts meet the journal’s editorial and publication standards.

The editor must act in the interest of the journal, the scholarly community, and the integrity of the published record.

Fair Editorial Assessment

Editorial decisions on manuscripts submitted to PSR Press journals must be made entirely on the basis of academic and scientific content. Editors should evaluate manuscripts according to their importance, originality, clarity, methodological or theoretical soundness, language quality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and contribution to the scientific field.

Editors must not make decisions based on the authors’:

• ethnic origin;
• nationality or citizenship;
• race;
• gender;
• sexual orientation;
• religious belief;
• political orientation;
• institutional affiliation;
• personal background;
• seniority, reputation, or academic rank.

Every manuscript should be judged on its own scholarly quality. Editors should apply the journal’s standards consistently and should avoid favoritism, discrimination, bias, or personal influence in editorial decisions.

Scope, Originality, and Initial Evaluation

Editors should conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal. This assessment should consider whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal, whether it appears to make an original contribution, and whether it is sufficiently clear and complete for peer review.

At the initial evaluation stage, editors may consider:

• whether the topic is relevant to the journal;
• whether the article type is appropriate;
• whether the manuscript has a clear objective or research question;
• whether the work appears original and meaningful;
• whether the language and structure allow proper assessment;
• whether figures, tables, references, and declarations are complete;
• whether ethical approval, consent, or permissions are required;
• whether there are signs of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or serious ethical concerns.

Editors may reject a manuscript without external review if it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks academic quality, is incomplete, contains serious ethical concerns, or does not meet the basic standards required for peer review.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff of PSR Press must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Information obtained from a submitted manuscript must not be disclosed to anyone except those directly involved in the editorial and peer-review process.

Manuscript information may be shared only with:

• the editor-in-chief;
• handling editors;
• guest editors, where applicable;
• editorial board members involved in the manuscript;
• invited reviewers;
• editorial assistants;
• authorized publishing or technical staff;
• ethics advisers or investigation panels, where necessary.

Editors must protect the confidentiality of manuscript content, author communications, reviewer reports, editorial discussions, and decision-making records. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in any form of an editor’s own research, teaching, publication, presentation, or professional activity without the written consent of the author or authors.

Protection of Reviewer Identity

The peer-review process used by PSR Press journals is single-blind. This means that reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Editors must protect reviewer identities and should not disclose reviewer names or identifying information to authors unless the journal has a specific policy allowing disclosure or the reviewer gives explicit permission. Editors should also ensure that review reports, uploaded files, tracked changes, and reviewer comments do not unintentionally reveal the reviewer’s identity.

Reviewer confidentiality helps reviewers provide honest and independent evaluations. Editors should respect this confidentiality throughout the review process and after the editorial decision has been made.

Conflict of Interest

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest. If an editor has any relationship, interest, or circumstance that could influence, or appear to influence, editorial judgment, the manuscript should be assigned to another suitable editor.

Conflicts of interest may include:

• recent collaboration with any author;
• current or recent employment at the same institution as an author;
• close personal or professional relationship with an author;
• financial interest related to the manuscript;
• academic competition or personal disagreement;
• involvement in the research or preparation of the manuscript;
• supervisor, student, mentor, or close colleague relationship;
• connection with a company, institution, or organization involved in the work.

Editors should also check whether reviewers have conflicts of interest before inviting them to review. If a conflict is discovered after review has begun, the editor should decide whether the reviewer’s report can be used or whether a replacement reviewer is needed.

Reviewer Selection

Editors should carefully select reviewers who have appropriate scientific, technical, mathematical, clinical, or scholarly expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewer selection should be based on expertise, independence, availability, and ability to provide a fair and constructive review.

Editors should consider:

• the reviewer’s subject knowledge;
• publication record in the relevant field;
• previous review quality and reliability;
• absence of conflicts of interest;
• ability to complete the review within the required time;
• balance of expertise where more than one reviewer is needed.

Editors may consider reviewer suggestions made by authors, but the final choice of reviewers remains the responsibility of the editor. Editors should not rely only on author-suggested reviewers and should take reasonable steps to ensure that invited reviewers are independent and qualified.

Peer Review Management

Editors are responsible for managing the peer-review process in a fair and timely manner. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial assessment should be sent to external expert reviewers. At least two review reports are normally required before a peer-review decision is made.

Reviewers are normally given eight weeks to complete their reports. Editors and editorial assistants may send reminders where appropriate and may invite additional reviewers if reports are delayed, insufficient, conflicting, or incomplete.

Editors should ensure that reviewers are asked to assess:

• originality and contribution;
• relevance to the journal;
• quality of methods, analysis, arguments, or proofs;
• accuracy of results and conclusions;
• adequacy of references;
• quality of figures and tables;
• ethical compliance;
• clarity of presentation;
• suitability for publication.

Editors should review the content and quality of review reports before using them for decision-making. Reviews that are unclear, biased, offensive, superficial, or unsupported should be treated with caution. If necessary, the editor may seek additional review.

Standards of Editorial Objectivity

Editors should make decisions objectively and should not be influenced by personal opinions, external pressure, financial interests, institutional relationships, or the identity of the authors. Editorial decisions must be based on the manuscript’s academic quality and suitability for the journal.

Editors should ensure that reviewer comments are constructive and relevant. Personal criticism of authors should not be included in decision letters. If reviewer comments contain inappropriate language, the editor may edit or remove such language before sending comments to the authors, while preserving the academic meaning of the review.

Editors should distinguish between:

• major scientific or scholarly concerns;
• minor presentation issues;
• matters of journal style;
• optional suggestions;
• reviewer preferences that are not essential.

This distinction helps authors understand what must be addressed before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Citation Ethics

Editors should not suggest that authors include citations to the editor’s own work, the work of colleagues, or the work of associates merely to increase citation counts or enhance visibility. Citation suggestions must always be based on valid academic reasons.

Editors may recommend additional citations only when the suggested literature is directly relevant to the manuscript and necessary for scholarly completeness, background, method, interpretation, or comparison.

Citation recommendations should be:

• academically justified;
• relevant to the manuscript;
• limited to necessary sources;
• free from personal citation advantage;
• clearly explained where appropriate.

Editors should also be alert to inappropriate reviewer requests for excessive or irrelevant citations. If a reviewer appears to request citations for personal advantage, the editor may disregard or remove that request.

Publication Ethics and Misconduct

Editors are responsible for responding to ethical concerns that arise before or after publication. If an editor suspects misconduct or receives an allegation, the matter should be handled carefully, confidentially, and in accordance with publication ethics principles.

Possible concerns may include:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• fabricated or falsified data;
• manipulated images;
• unethical research involving humans or animals;
• missing ethical approval or consent;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• authorship disputes;
• citation manipulation;
• peer-review manipulation;
• misuse of third-party copyrighted material;
• inaccurate or misleading reporting.

Editors should not ignore credible concerns. They may request clarification from authors, consult reviewers or editorial board members, ask for supporting documentation, involve the editor-in-chief, or follow the journal’s ethics procedures. Decisions should be based on evidence, fairness, and the need to protect the scholarly record.

Corrections, Errata, Retractions, and Clarifications

The editorial office is responsible for maintaining the accuracy and reliability of the published record. When errors or concerns are identified after publication, editors should take appropriate action.

Depending on the nature of the issue, the journal may publish:

• a correction;
• an erratum;
• a clarification;
• an apology statement;
• an expression of concern;
• a retraction.

Corrections or errata may be issued when an honest error is found that does not invalidate the main findings of the article. Clarifications may be issued when information needs to be explained more clearly. Retractions may be necessary where there is clear evidence of scientific misconduct, unethical research, plagiarism, duplicate publication, unreliable findings, serious error, or other major violations of ethical publishing.

Editors should not refrain from retracting a publication where the evidence clearly shows that the published work is unreliable or unethical. Retraction is not intended as punishment; it is a mechanism for correcting the scholarly record and informing readers.

Editorial Decision-Making

The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. Editorial decisions should be based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, journal scope, editorial standards, ethical requirements, and the editor’s academic judgment.

Possible editorial decisions may include:

• accept;
• minor revision;
• major revision;
• reject.

The editor is not required to follow reviewer recommendations automatically. Reviewers advise the editor, but the final editorial judgment belongs to the editor or the authorized editorial authority of the journal. If reviewer reports conflict, the editor may make a decision based on the strength of the arguments, request revision, seek another review, or consult the editor-in-chief.

A manuscript should be accepted only when the editor is satisfied that it meets the journal’s academic standards, fits the journal’s scope, has been appropriately reviewed, and complies with publication ethics.

Communication With Authors and Reviewers

Editors should ensure that communication with authors and reviewers is professional, clear, respectful, and timely. Decision letters should explain the outcome of the editorial process and provide authors with useful guidance.

When requesting revision, editors should clearly indicate:

• whether the revision is minor or major;
• which issues must be addressed;
• whether a point-by-point response is required;
• whether a marked version of the manuscript is required;
• the revision deadline;
• whether the revised manuscript may be sent for further review.

Editors should also communicate respectfully with reviewers, acknowledge their contribution, and avoid unnecessary review requests. Reviewers who provide biased, poor-quality, delayed, or inappropriate reviews may be avoided in future assignments.

Editorial Independence and Accountability

Editors should exercise editorial independence while remaining accountable to the journal’s policies and ethical standards. They should not allow commercial interests, personal relationships, political pressure, institutional influence, or external demands to determine editorial decisions.

Editors are expected to:

• follow the journal’s editorial policies;
• maintain confidentiality;
• manage conflicts of interest;
• ensure fair peer review;
• protect reviewer identity;
• correct the scholarly record when necessary;
• avoid citation manipulation;
• treat authors and reviewers respectfully;
• make decisions based on academic merit.

By fulfilling these responsibilities, editors help ensure that journals published by PSR Press maintain academic quality, ethical integrity, and trust within the scholarly community.

Use of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Tools

Editors must handle all submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, figures, tables, and supplementary files as confidential material. Because of this confidentiality obligation, editors must not upload, copy, paste, summarize, translate, analyze, or process any unpublished manuscript content, reviewer report, author response, or editorial communication through public artificial intelligence tools, public chatbots, public grammar platforms, or any third-party system that may store, reuse, train on, or disclose the submitted content.

Artificial intelligence tools must not be used as a substitute for editorial judgment, peer review, subject expertise, ethical assessment, or final decision-making. An editor may not rely on an AI-generated assessment to decide whether a manuscript should be accepted, rejected, revised, or sent for peer review. Editorial decisions must remain the responsibility of qualified human editors and must be based on the manuscript’s academic merit, journal scope, reviewer reports, ethical compliance, originality, clarity, and contribution to the field.

Editors should not use AI tools to generate reviewer reports, confidential editorial evaluations, decision letters, or ethical judgments unless the use is limited to language polishing of text written by the editor and does not involve disclosure of confidential manuscript content to an unsafe or public system. If any digital tool is used for grammar correction, formatting assistance, or administrative support, the editor remains fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and professional quality of the final communication.

Editors must not enter the following information into public AI tools or unsecured third-party platforms:

• unpublished manuscript text;
• author names linked to unpublished submissions;
• reviewer names or reviewer reports;
• confidential editorial comments;
• author response letters;
• unpublished data, figures, tables, equations, or proofs;
• ethical allegations or misconduct concerns;
• editorial decisions before formal communication;
• any file or content received through the peer-review process.

AI tools must not be listed or treated as editors, reviewers, editorial board members, or decision-makers. These tools cannot accept responsibility for confidentiality, conflicts of interest, ethical reasoning, scholarly judgment, or editorial accountability.

Editors should also be alert to inappropriate or undisclosed use of AI by authors or reviewers. If an editor suspects that AI tools have been used in a way that compromises originality, accuracy, authorship responsibility, confidentiality, data integrity, citation accuracy, or ethical compliance, the editor may request clarification from the authors or reviewers and may refer the matter to the editorial office or editor-in-chief for further assessment.