Editors Guidelines: Etiological Diagnosis
Provide rigorous, fair, and timely editorial leadership for diagnostic research.
Core Responsibilities
Editors ensure quality, integrity, and consistency in etiological diagnosis publishing.
Editors assess scope fit, assign qualified reviewers, and guide decisions based on evidence and clarity. Manuscripts outside the journal scope should be declined promptly with constructive feedback. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed, and assignments should be declined if impartiality cannot be maintained.
From Assignment to Decision
Clear steps help editors deliver consistent outcomes.
Initial Assessment
Confirm scope alignment, ethics, and completeness.
Reviewer Selection
Invite experts with diagnostic and methodological expertise.
Decision Draft
Summarize key issues and provide clear revision expectations.
Editors should balance scientific rigor with feasible revision requests, focusing on essential improvements that strengthen etiological conclusions. Escalate complex ethics questions to the editorial office without delay.
Decision Letters and Author Guidance
Clear decisions improve author outcomes and reduce delays.
Decision letters should summarize the main reasons for the decision, list required revisions, and identify any ethical concerns. Avoid vague requests and focus on changes that directly improve etiological interpretation or diagnostic validity.
Reviewer Management
Proactive reviewer engagement supports timely decisions.
Invite reviewers with proven responsiveness and monitor deadlines. If reviews are delayed, reassign quickly to maintain momentum. Clear communication with authors about expected timelines improves trust in the editorial process.
Recommendation Categories
Use clear categories to guide authors effectively.
Decisions should align with standard categories such as accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Provide specific rationale tied to diagnostic validity, study design, and data transparency.
Guiding Effective Revisions
Specific guidance improves author outcomes.
Focus revision requests on essential improvements to methods, reporting, and etiological interpretation. Encourage authors to address reviewer comments clearly and to provide point by point responses.
When to Escalate
Complex cases benefit from editorial office input.
If you encounter disputes, suspected misconduct, or unclear authorship, notify the editorial office promptly for guidance.
Record Key Decisions
Clear records support transparency.
Document key decision points in the editorial system to ensure continuity and accountability.
Maintain Momentum
Steady communication keeps authors informed.
Provide quick updates when delays occur to preserve author confidence and trust.
Support Editorial Excellence
Join the JED editorial team and shape diagnostic publishing standards.
For questions: [email protected]
