Enago
Declaration

Guide to Editors

 

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has produced and updated the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) Submitted to Biomedical Journals". The Medical Director and Senior Editor of Open Access Publishing London (OAPL) have agreed to incorporate the URM into the review and publication process of all OAPL journals. Download a PDF version of the full text of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals here.

 


The Council of Science Editors

The Council of Science Editors (CSE) has produced "Editorial Policy Statements" that cover the responsibilities and rights of editors of peer-reviewed journals. The Medical Director and Senior Editor of Open Access Publishing London (OAPL) have agreed to incorporate these Statements into the review and publication process of all OAPL journals.

 

Open Access Publishing London operates a strict code of conduct for Editors. More information can be found here.

 


Articles submitted to an Open Access Publishing London journal will be initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-In-Chief may choose to discuss the manuscript with the Deputy Editor and/or the Executive Editor before a decision can be formulated. If it was decided to proceed with the peer-review process, the manuscript can either be handled directly by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor or Executive Editor or a Handling Editor can be invited. This applies to Associate and Section Editors. The manuscript may be, then, sent for peer-review.

Each manuscript will need to be peer-reviewed by 2 peer-reviewers:

(1) Reviewer Type A: Internal (i.e. Editorial Board Member).

(2) Reviewer Type B: External (i.e. Non-Editorial Board Member).

Inviting further reviewers may be required if there was dispute between the internal and external reviewer reports. We understand that within the resources of the journal the Editor-in-Chief may occasionally make executive decisions after one peer review and an Editor's review.

The Handling Editor can make an initial decision (e.g. to accept manuscript subject to revision). However, the final acceptance requires a senior editorial decision (i.e. by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor or Executive Editor).

The reviewer will first indicate if the manuscript is methodologically appropriate for OA Publishing London journals publication pool.

The reviewer's journal specific report should result in one of the following: accept as it is, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, or reject from primary journal.

In order for the manuscript to be accepted for publication immediately or after minor revisions:

(1) Two opinions are needed to accept the manuscript; one should be Reviewer Type A.

(2) Reviewers Type A/B has expressed no major concerns.

In order for the manuscript to be accepted after major revisions:

(1) Two opinions are required to accept the manuscript after the major revisions; one should be a Reviewer Type A.

(2) Reviewers Type A/B has expressed no major concerns during the peer-review process.

A manuscript will be rejected if:

(1) The Editors-In-Chief has rejected the manuscript.

(2) The Deputy Editor or Executive Editor has rejected the manuscript.

(3) Reviewer Type A has rejected the manuscript.

(4) Two out of three opinions have rejected the manuscript.

The Senior Editorial opinion will always prevail.

Manuscripts including statistical analysis will not be routinely forwarded to one of our statistical advisors unless it was requested by the Editorial team.

If any of the reviewers could not decide or there was a disagreement, the manuscript will be forwarded to the Editor-In-Chief, the Deputy Editor and/or the Executive Editor for final decision making.

 


Initial decision making

The first decision should be ready within four weeks from the initial submission. In case of a disagreement between the reviewers, the first decision will take five weeks. The second decision will take one week after revision, in case of minor revision; but in case of major revision, a decision should be formulated in three weeks. A maximum of three revisions is allowed per manuscript.

If the author is dissatisfied with the decision, he/she can appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor or Executive Editor. If accepted, the manuscript will be forwarded for another round of peer-review.

If the Editor-In-Chief or Deputy Editor or Executive Editor has rejected the manuscript, no further appeal is permitted.

 

 

Under Development