As an Editor of the Editorial Board, you will be contributing greatly to the prestige of our journal and the high standards of peer review. The role of the Editor in scholarly publishing is the management of the peer review of manuscripts by reviewers. The Editors for the publications of Pen & Prosperity are responsible for the consistency and reputation of our journals. By assuring the selection of appropriate reviewers to identify quality manuscripts, and by efficiently managing the peer review process, the quality and value of our publications are increased. Pen & Prosperity requires the peer review of all papers that appear in our journals and papers are selected for publication on the basis of novelty, quality and appropriateness.
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for Trust-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or Trust officers) in making this decision.
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or Trust). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
The editor is able to make better editorial judgements with the help of peer review, and the author may get feedback on how to improve their work via editorial communications. The scientific process relies on peer review, which is a crucial part of formal academic writing. Like many others, Pen & Prosperity believes that academics who want to publish should also assess other people’s work.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
It is the responsibility of the reviewers to find relevant published material that the authors have neglected to reference. A reference should be included with every statement that states an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously recorded. In addition, if a reviewer is aware of any other published papers that are substantially comparable to the article being considered, they should notify the editor of this.
Reviewers are required to get the author’s written authorisation before using any unpublished materials provided in an article in their own study. None of the participants in the peer review process should ever benefit financially or otherwise from the privileged information or ideas that were shared with them. If a reviewer has any kind of relationship—whether professional, personal, or otherwise—with any of the authors, businesses, or organisations associated with a submission, they should not consider it for review.
Your journal manuscript can be rejected if it:
- Lacks proper structure
- Lacks the necessary detail for readers to fully understand the authors’ analysis
- Has no new science
- Does not clearly explain which parts of the findings are new science, versus what was already known
- Lacks up-to-date references
- Contains theories, concepts, or conclusions that are not fully supported by its data, arguments, and information
- Does not provide enough details about materials and methods to allow other scientists to repeat the experiment
- Lacks clear descriptions or explanations of:
- Hypotheses tested
- The experimental design
- Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics
- Describes poor experimental design, or faulty or insufficient statistical analysis
- Has poor language quality
Publication is a difficult process, and you must be prepared to defend your submission against rejection from both editors and peer reviewers. However, do not be too persistent. Generally, only one letter defending your submission will be accepted for each of the review stages (editorial review and peer review). If you are unsuccessful after sending a response letter, then you should strongly considers electing another journal.