Policy Review

1) Executive summary (quick snapshot)

• Strengths (typical): clear submission flow, automated checks (format/wordcount), reviewer assignment tools, basic copyright transfer form.
• Common weaknesses/risks include weak conflict-of-interest (COI) rules, inconsistent handling of misconduct, insufficient data-sharing and reproducibility requirements, unclear privacy/data retention policies, a lack of diversity/DEI safeguards, and inadequate transparency regarding editorial decisions and metrics.
• Top recommendations: formalize COI & data policies, require data/code availability statements, strengthen misconduct & retraction procedures, standardize reviewer training & compensation/credit, and publish an editorial transparency statement.

2) Scope & governance

• Is there a clearly published scope (topics, article types)?
• Is the editorial board structure documented (roles, appointments, and term lengths)?
• Is there a named ombudsperson or ethics officer?

Common gaps

• Vague role descriptions for editors (e.g., who makes final acceptance calls).
• No policy for editorial independence from publisher/owner.

3) Submission & eligibility

• Author eligibility (affiliations, prior publications, simultaneous submissions).
• Mandatory declarations (funding, COIs, author contributions, ethics approvals).
• Preprint policy (allowed/discouraged/required disclosure).

4) Peer review process

• Type of peer review (single blind/double blind / open).
• Reviewer selection criteria, training, and workload limits.
• Time targets for review and the escalation route for delayed reviews.

5) Conflicts of interest (COI)

• Is COI defined for authors, reviewers, and editors?
• Is there a public COI disclosure requirement on publication?

6) Research integrity, plagiarism, and misconduct

• Plagiarism screening at submission (which tools, threshold).
• Process for Handling Allegations (Investigation Steps, Timelines, and Confidentiality)
• Sanctions (rejection, retraction, notice to institutions).

Recommendations

• Mandatory similarity check (report saved) and a formal misconduct investigation flow aligned with COPE guidelines.
• Publish retraction/correction notices with clear reasons and link them to the original article.

Investigation flow (brief)

• Receipt of allegation → preliminary triage by Ethics Officer (7 days).
• If credible → notify authors, request response (14 days).
• Investigation with the institution if needed → decision and corrective action (60–120 days).
• Publish notice (retraction/correction) with DOI and explanation.

7) Retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern

• Published policy for corrections/retractions that is consistent and visible.
• Format of notices and indexing.

8) Copyright, licensing & open access

• Does the journal have clear copyright transfer or author retention rules?
• Licensing (CC BY, CC BY-NC, etc.) and fees are transparent?