Editors Guidelines
Clear expectations for editors who guide peer review and uphold quality standards.
Editorial Role
Editors evaluate scope fit, oversee peer review, and ensure decisions are evidence based. The role requires fairness, confidentiality, and attention to research integrity.
JTMH editors are expected to act promptly and provide constructive feedback that improves manuscripts and supports authors.
Key Responsibilities
Scope Assessment
Confirm alignment with tropical medicine priorities.
Reviewer Selection
Invite qualified, unbiased reviewers.
Decision Letters
Provide clear, actionable decisions.
Ethics
Identify conflicts, consent issues, or misconduct.
Editorial Workflow
Initial Review
Assess completeness and ethical compliance.
Invite Reviewers
Select experts in the topic area.
Synthesize Feedback
Balance reviewer input and journal standards.
Finalize Decision
Communicate decisions with clarity and respect.
Join the Editorial Team
Apply to serve as an editor and help shape tropical medicine scholarship.
Contact us: [email protected]
Confidentiality
Editors must keep submissions confidential and avoid sharing content outside the review process. Conflicts of interest should be declared promptly.
Decision Criteria
Editorial decisions should be based on methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to tropical medicine. Novelty and clinical impact are valued when supported by strong evidence.
Editors should verify that data availability statements and conflict disclosures are complete before final decisions are issued. Editors should also confirm that the study aligns with reporting guidelines and includes sufficient methodological detail for replication.
When uncertainty exists, consult the Editor in Chief or the ethics panel for guidance on borderline cases. Consistency in decision making builds trust with authors and reviewers across regions and settings over time globally in practice.
Reviewer Management
Select reviewers with subject expertise and no conflicts of interest. Aim for balanced perspectives and ensure reviewers receive clear expectations on scope and timelines.
If reviews conflict, editors may invite an additional reviewer or provide a reasoned synthesis to guide the decision as well.
Communication Standards
Decision letters should be professional, constructive, and aligned with reviewer feedback. Clearly distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions to help authors respond effectively.
Editors should avoid overly technical language in decision summaries and provide clear next steps to keep the process transparent.
Timeliness matters. Editors are encouraged to complete initial assessments quickly, send reminders to reviewers when needed, and close decisions promptly once sufficient feedback is received.
