Editor Responsibilities

Editorial Roles, Responsibilities, and Manuscript Handling Workflow

Editorial Roles, Responsibilities, and Manuscript Handling Workflow

The Journal of Pharmacovigilance and Drug Research (JPADR) is committed to maintaining a transparent, ethical, fair, and efficient editorial process. The journal follows a structured editorial workflow to ensure scientific integrity, ethical compliance, fair peer review, editorial accountability, timely manuscript processing, and transparent editorial decision-making.

This policy defines the responsibilities of editorial personnel involved in manuscript handling and publication activities.

JPADR follows internationally recognized editorial and publication ethics standards recommended by:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
• World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)

Editorial Workflow Structure

Editorial Stage	Responsible Person
Submission Received	Editorial Office
Scope Screening	Editor
Plagiarism Check	Managing Editor
Ethics Verification	Ethics Editor
Reviewer Assignment	Handling Editor
Reviews Received	Reviewers
Final Decision	Editor-in-Chief

1. Editorial Office Responsibilities

Stage: Submission Received

The Editorial Office serves as the primary administrative contact for manuscript processing and communication throughout the editorial workflow.

Responsibilities include:

• Receiving manuscript submissions.
• Verifying submission completeness.
• Checking required documents and files.
• Confirming author details and contact information.
• Ensuring submission formatting compliance.
• Assigning manuscript identification numbers.
• Acknowledging manuscript receipt.
• Coordinating communication between authors, editors, and reviewers.
• Maintaining manuscript records and workflow documentation.

Administrative Checks May Include

• Cover letter submission.
• Author declarations.
• Conflict of Interest disclosure forms.
• Copyright or License Agreement forms.
• Data Availability Statements.
• Ethical approval documentation.
• Funding disclosures.

The Editorial Office does not make scientific acceptance or rejection decisions unless specifically authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

2. Editor Responsibilities

Stage: Scope Screening

The Editor performs the initial editorial assessment to determine whether a submitted manuscript is suitable for peer review consideration.

Responsibilities include:

• Evaluating manuscript relevance to the journal scope.
• Assessing scientific suitability.
• Checking novelty and significance.
• Reviewing manuscript organization and presentation.
• Identifying obvious ethical or methodological concerns.
• Evaluating compliance with the Author Guidelines.
• Determining whether the manuscript should proceed to further editorial assessment.

The Editor May

• Reject manuscripts outside the journal scope.
• Request technical corrections before peer review.
• Recommend additional ethical screening.
• Refer manuscripts to specialized editors.

Scope Screening Criteria May Include

• Relevance to pharmacovigilance and drug research.
• Scientific quality.
• Originality and significance.
• Clarity of presentation.
• Ethical acceptability.
• Publication priority.

Editors are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, consistently, fairly, and without discrimination.

3. Managing Editor Responsibilities

Stage: Plagiarism Check

The Managing Editor oversees technical quality assurance and publication ethics screening during the editorial process.

Responsibilities include:

• Conducting plagiarism and similarity screening.
• Reviewing similarity reports.
• Assessing potential duplicate publication concerns.
• Identifying possible citation manipulation.
• Checking image integrity where applicable.
• Coordinating technical editorial processes.
• Monitoring editorial workflow timelines.
• Supporting editorial quality assurance.

Plagiarism Screening Tools May Include

• iThenticate.
• Turnitin.
• Other recognized similarity-detection software.

The Managing Editor May

• Request clarification from authors.
• Escalate ethical concerns to senior editors.
• Recommend manuscript rejection in cases of serious publication misconduct.
• Forward ethical concerns to the Ethics Editor for further evaluation.

Similarity scores are interpreted contextually and are not evaluated solely on percentage thresholds. Editorial assessment considers the nature, source, and significance of overlapping content before any decision is made.

4. Ethics Editor Responsibilities

Stage: Ethics Verification

The Ethics Editor oversees compliance with research ethics, publication ethics, and research integrity requirements throughout the editorial process.

Responsibilities include:

• Reviewing ethical approval documentation.
• Verifying Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) approvals.
• Assessing informed consent compliance for human participant research.
• Evaluating animal ethics approvals where applicable.
• Verifying clinical trial registration information.
• Reviewing Conflict of Interest disclosures.
• Assessing Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage disclosures.
• Evaluating research integrity concerns.
• Reviewing Data Availability Statements.

The Ethics Editor May

• Request additional ethical documentation.
• Seek clarification from authors.
• Recommend rejection for ethical non-compliance.
• Initiate publication misconduct assessment procedures.
• Consult institutional guidance or external experts where appropriate.

The Ethics Editor helps ensure that published research complies with internationally recognized ethical standards and the journal's publication ethics policies.

5. Handling Editor Responsibilities

Stage: Reviewer Assignment

The Handling Editor manages the peer-review process and coordinates reviewer selection, communication, and manuscript evaluation.

Responsibilities include:

• Selecting qualified reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
• Assessing reviewer qualifications and expertise.
• Avoiding reviewer conflicts of interest.
• Inviting reviewers to evaluate manuscripts.
• Monitoring review progress and timelines.
• Ensuring confidentiality throughout peer review.
• Evaluating reviewer comments and recommendations.
• Requesting additional reviews where necessary.
• Communicating revision requests and editorial decisions to authors.

Reviewer Selection Criteria May Include

• Subject matter expertise.
• Research experience.
• Publication history.
• Reviewer performance and reliability.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

The Handling Editor Should

• Maintain fairness and objectivity.
• Protect reviewer anonymity and confidentiality.
• Ensure constructive and professional peer-review reports.
• Avoid inappropriate influence on reviewer recommendations.
• Support timely completion of peer review.

The Handling Editor facilitates an ethical, unbiased, and efficient peer-review process while maintaining scientific quality and editorial integrity.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Stage: Reviews Received

Reviewers provide independent, confidential, and objective scientific evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer responsibilities include:

• Assessing scientific quality.
• Evaluating originality and significance.
• Reviewing study methodology and statistical analysis where applicable.
• Identifying ethical concerns or potential publication misconduct.
• Providing constructive, evidence-based feedback.
• Maintaining strict confidentiality.
• Declaring actual or potential conflicts of interest.
• Completing reviews within agreed timelines.

Reviewers Should

• Remain objective, impartial, and professional.
• Avoid discriminatory or inappropriate comments.
• Respect manuscript confidentiality.
• Avoid using unpublished information for personal or professional benefit.
• Notify the editor if they are unable to complete the review or identify conflicts of interest.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not independently determine editorial decisions regarding publication.

7. Editor-in-Chief Responsibilities

Stage: Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief holds ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions, publication ethics, and the overall scientific quality of the journal.

Responsibilities include:

• Reviewing editorial recommendations.
• Evaluating reviewer reports.
• Making final publication decisions.
• Ensuring consistency in editorial decision-making.
• Maintaining editorial independence.
• Overseeing publication ethics and research integrity.
• Managing appeals and complaints.
• Supervising corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.
• Ensuring compliance with journal policies.
• Supporting continuous improvement in journal quality.

Final Decisions May Include

• Acceptance.
• Minor Revision.
• Major Revision.
• Rejection.
• Referral for ethical investigation.

Before making complex editorial decisions, the Editor-in-Chief may consult:

• Editorial Board Members.
• Ethics Advisors.
• Independent subject experts.
• Statistical reviewers where appropriate.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, ethical compliance, research quality, and relevance to the journal's scope.

8. Editorial Independence

All editors and editorial personnel are expected to maintain complete editorial independence throughout manuscript evaluation and decision-making.

Editorial personnel should:

• Maintain objectivity.
• Avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
• Protect confidentiality.
• Follow internationally recognized publication ethics standards.

Editorial decisions shall be based solely on:

• Scientific merit.
• Ethical compliance.
• Research quality.
• Methodological rigor.
• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

Commercial interests, institutional affiliations, financial considerations, advertising, sponsorship, or personal relationships must not influence editorial judgment or publication decisions.

9. Editorial Confidentiality

Editors, editorial staff, and all individuals involved in manuscript handling are expected to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the editorial and publication process.

Confidential information includes, but is not limited to:

• Submitted manuscripts.
• Reviewer identities and reviewer reports.
• Editorial discussions and recommendations.
• Unpublished research data.
• Author correspondence.
• Ethical investigations and related documentation.
• Editorial decisions prior to official notification.

Confidential information shall not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals or used for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage. Access to manuscript-related information is limited to individuals directly involved in the editorial evaluation process.

10. Conflict of Interest Management

Editors and editorial personnel are expected to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence—or reasonably appear to influence—their editorial judgment.

Examples of conflicts of interest may include:

• Financial relationships.
• Institutional affiliations.
• Collaborative research relationships.
• Personal or family relationships.
• Academic competition.
• Professional rivalries.

Editors with conflicts of interest may:

• Recuse themselves from manuscript handling.
• Transfer editorial responsibility to another qualified editor.
• Request independent editorial oversight.
• Seek guidance from the Editor-in-Chief where appropriate.

The journal seeks to maintain fair, objective, transparent, and unbiased editorial evaluation through appropriate conflict-of-interest management procedures.

11. Ethical Oversight and Accountability

All editorial personnel are expected to uphold the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity throughout the editorial process.

Editorial personnel are expected to:

• Follow journal editorial policies and procedures.
• Adhere to internationally recognized publication ethics standards.
• Participate in editorial quality assurance activities.
• Support transparent editorial governance.
• Promote responsible scholarly publishing.
• Maintain professional conduct and accountability.

To strengthen publication integrity, the journal may conduct:

• Editorial workflow audits.
• Research ethics reviews.
• Reviewer performance evaluations.
• Editorial quality control assessments.
• Periodic policy compliance reviews.

Editorial personnel are encouraged to participate in continuing education and training related to publication ethics, peer review, editorial decision-making, and responsible scholarly publishing.

12. Commitment to Responsible Editorial Management

The Journal of Pharmacovigilance and Drug Research (JPADR) is committed to maintaining a transparent, ethical, accountable, and efficient editorial management system that promotes trust in scholarly communication.

JPADR is committed to:

• Transparent editorial workflows.
• Ethical and unbiased peer review.
• Fair and objective manuscript evaluation.
• Responsible publication practices.
• Editorial accountability.
• Scientific integrity.
• Continuous improvement of editorial quality.
• Compliance with internationally recognized publication ethics standards.

The journal recognizes that clearly defined editorial roles, responsibilities, and manuscript handling procedures are essential for maintaining confidence in scholarly publishing, protecting research integrity, and ensuring fair editorial decision-making.

References

1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices and Ethical Guidelines for Editors.
2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
3. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Editorial Policy and Ethical Best Practices.
4. Council of Science Editors (CSE). White Paper on Publication Ethics.