International Journal of Neonatology
For Editors
Operational guidance for editors of the International Journal of Neonatology: how a manuscript moves from arrival to decision, what an editor is responsible for at each step, and the independence that governs every decision.
01
Responsibility
The editor’s role
Editors provide scholarly stewardship by overseeing peer review and upholding publication ethics.
Scholarly judgment
An editor decides whether a manuscript falls within the journal’s scope, whether the evidence supports the claims made, and what the review process needs to establish. That judgment belongs to the editor and is exercised independently.
Subject knowledge
Manuscripts are handled by an editor with knowledge of the area the work concerns, so that the questions put to reviewers are the ones the study actually raises.
Duty to the record
An editor is responsible for what the journal publishes and for correcting it when that becomes necessary, including after publication.
Duty to authors
Authors receive a decision that states its grounds, and correspondence that lets them understand what is being asked of them.
02
Workflow
Handling a manuscript
The sequence below applies to every submission.
1 · Screening
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
2 · Checks before review
Before a manuscript is sent out, the editor confirms that the reporting checklist, ethics approval, consent statement and, for interventional trials, the registration details are present, and that a similarity report has been read in context.
3 · Reviewer selection
The handling editor selects reviewers for subject expertise and absence of conflicts. Authors may suggest reviewers or ask that particular reviewers be avoided, and the editor decides independently of those suggestions.
4 · Assessment
The editor reads the reviews alongside the manuscript rather than counting them. Where reviewers disagree, the editor resolves the disagreement on the evidence or seeks a further opinion.
5 · Decision
The editor issues a decision stating its grounds, and identifies which points must be addressed for a revised manuscript to be reconsidered.
6 · Revision and appeal
A revised manuscript is assessed against the points raised. An author who contests a decision writes to the editorial office setting out the grounds, and the Editor-in-Chief considers the request on the scientific and editorial grounds raised.
03
Review model
The review model in practice
The model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Handling a double-blind request
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
The editor checks the reviewer manuscript for author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding details and institution names before it is sent out, and returns it to the author where identifying information remains.
Briefing reviewers
The invitation tells a reviewer which model applies, what the editor needs the review to establish, and the date by which it is needed.
04
Independence
Independence and decisions
An editor’s decision answers to the evidence and to the journal’s scope. It answers to nothing else.
Decision criteria
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Independence from commercial considerations
Decisions remain independent of fees, services, membership, and editorial or reviewer roles.
The article processing charge is invoiced after acceptance and has no part in the assessment. An editor is never asked to consider whether an author can pay, whether an author holds a membership, or what any decision means for the journal commercially.
Volume is not a target
There is no acceptance quota and no publication target. The number of manuscripts accepted follows from the manuscripts received.
Raising a concern about independence
An editor who is approached about a decision on any basis other than the scientific and editorial merits reports it to the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial office at [email protected].
If a consideration would not belong in the decision letter, it does not belong in the decision.
05
Disclosure
Conflicts and recusal
Recusal
Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions and on work by close collaborators; those manuscripts are handled by another editor, independently.
Declaring an interest
An editor with a financial, professional or personal interest in a manuscript declines the assignment and tells the editorial office, which reassigns it.
Institutional proximity
Where an editor and an author share an institution or a recent collaboration, the manuscript is reassigned so that the decision is visibly independent.
Reviewers
A reviewer with a competing interest declines the assignment and tells the editorial office. The editor checks for known conflicts before inviting anyone.
06
Integrity
Integrity and the published record
The full requirements are set out in Editorial Policies; what follows is what an editor does with them.
Suspected misconduct
Where fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation or duplicate submission is suspected, the editor pauses the assessment and refers the matter to the editorial office. Allegations are investigated following the COPE flowcharts, the corresponding author is given the opportunity to respond, and the authors’ institution is informed where the case warrants it.
Similarity reports
A similarity report is read in context by an editor and is never applied as an automatic threshold.
Ethics documentation
Where approval, consent or registration details are missing or inconsistent, the editor asks for them before review proceeds.
After publication
An error that does not affect the conclusions is handled by a correction notice; unreliable findings are retracted; an unresolved question under investigation may warrant an expression of concern. Each is published as a citable item linked in both directions with the article.
07
Confidentiality
Confidentiality and AI use
A manuscript is confidential
An unpublished manuscript is confidential. It is not shared, discussed outside the review process, or used in an editor’s own work, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors under the single-blind model.
AI tools in review
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
The same requirement applies to editors. It covers all externally hosted AI tools, not only publicly available ones.
After a decision
Editors and reviewers securely delete downloaded manuscript files and do not retain or use unpublished material.
Related
Editorial office
Questions about handling a manuscript are welcome at [email protected].
- Editorial PoliciesThe policies these guidelines apply.
- Reviewer GuidelinesWhat the journal asks of a reviewer.
- Editorial BoardThe editors responsible for the journal’s scholarly decisions.
- Aims and ScopeWhat the journal publishes and where its boundaries fall.
What authors are asked to supply, and the requirements an editor checks before review.