Editor Guideline

As an Editor of the Editorial Board, you will significantly contribute to the prestige of our journal and uphold the high standards of peer review. The role of the Editor in scholarly publishing involves managing the peer review of manuscripts by reviewers. Editors for the publications of IJSMM are responsible for maintaining the consistency and reputation of our journals. By selecting appropriate reviewers to identify quality manuscripts and efficiently managing the peer review process, the quality and value of our publications are enhanced. IJSMM requires the peer review of all papers that appear in our journals, and papers are selected for publication based on novelty, quality, and appropriateness.

Assigning Editor

The Editor-in-Chief will assign an Editor to a manuscript based on the submission's subject area, by sending the Editor an email requesting that they handle the review process. The author is notified that the manuscript has been sent out for review and is given the name of the assigned Editor. If a submission is sent directly to the Editor, they can arrange the peer review directly, with or without notifying the Editor-in-Chief, until a final Accept/Reject decision is made.

Review

The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare but possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage may be insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, poor grammar or English language, or be outside the aims and scope of the journal. Should the Editor decide not to assign reviewers but instead reject the submission, they are required to provide comments to be returned to the author.

Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to preferably three, but at least two, experts for review. Suggestions for referees from the author are welcome, though these recommendations may or may not be used. Editors will solicit reviewers with the title and an abstract of the submission and, if accepted, send reviewers the submission via email. Editors should guide referees with Reviewer Guidelines (including the Review Form). Referees return their reviews directly to the Editor by email. Unless the Editor makes specific arrangements with a reviewer, the deadline to return a completed review is six weeks.

Making Decisions
 
Referees advise the Editor, who is responsible for making the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers, and the Editor's own assessment of the manuscript. The Editor must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the Editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear. The Editor should be sure to never disclose the names of reviewers to authors.
 
Accept - An accept decision means that an Editor is accepting the submission "as is" with no further changes required by the reviewers. In this case, the Editor will forward the decision to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will notify the author the decision with copying the Editor, and guide the author in the final submission and further production. The submission will not be seen again by the Editor or by the reviewers.
 
Major Revision - A major revision means that the submission should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews. If a major revision is recommended, the Editor will directly inform the author to make and return the revision to him/her for a second round of reviews. The decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may usually include verbatim comments by the referees. Major revision must be accompanied by a letter from the author indicating the main modifications and how the concerns stated by the reviewers have been addressed in the resubmission. Usually the original reviewers are used for the revised manuscript, but that is at the discretion of the Editor. The Editor will provide the reviewers with their previous reviews and the author’s letter for reference. Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions. Reviewers are given 3 weeks to review the major revision.
 
Minor Revision - The minor revision should not go back to the reviewers. The author is informed by the Editor directly, and will send the revision to the original Editor together with a short summary about the modifications authors have made and author's response to reviewer's comments. The Editor will evaluate the revision and make a final Accept/Reject decision. Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision.
 
Reject - The manuscript is not suitable for publication. The author is notified directly by the Editor, copying the Editor-in-Chief if the manuscript is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor may otherwise choose to forward the decision to the Editor-in-Chief who will contact the author with this final decision. In any case, comments should be provided by the Editor, and returned to the author. 

Editorial Process

IJSMM maintains a stringent double-blind peer-review system to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity and publication quality. This process involves evaluation by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers, culminating in a final editorial decision rendered by the assigned Action Editor. The following delineates the key stages of our review protocol:

Pre-Check Stage
Upon submission, the Executive Editor conducts an initial assessment to verify:

  • The manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope and special issue themes (if applicable);

  • The academic qualifications and professional background of all contributing authors;

  • Originality via iThenticate plagiarism screening, with generated reports identifying text duplication and providing corrective recommendations regarding citation enhancement or content modification.

Following this preliminary evaluation, the manuscript is assigned to an Action Editor whose expertise corresponds to the submission's subject area and who maintains no potential conflicts of interest with the authors. Should the Action Editor determine the manuscript to be outside the journal's purview or deficient in scholarly rigor, it will be summarily rejected without progression to peer review.

Peer Review Stage
A minimum of two independent review reports are secured for each qualifying submission. Reviewer selection adheres to the following criteria:

  • Absence of any conflicts of interest with manuscript authors;

  • Possession of a doctoral degree (PhD) in a relevant discipline;

  • Demonstrated scholarly activity evidenced by recent publications within the paper's field.

Reviewers submit comprehensive evaluations accompanied by one of four recommendations:

  1. Accept without revision (manuscript meets all publication standards);

  2. Consider after minor revision (requires limited amendments);

  3. Consider after major revision (substantive modifications necessary);

  4. Reject (fundamental flaws or insufficient novelty).

The Action Editor synthesizes these assessments to render the final publication decision, ensuring the journal's commitment to methodological excellence and academic novelty.