Editors play a central role in maintaining the quality, integrity, transparency and scientific credibility of ARCC Journals. They are responsible for overseeing manuscript assessment and peer review, making independent editorial decisions, ensuring compliance with publication and research ethics, and safeguarding the scholarly record before and after publication. 

ARCC periodically reviews its editorial policies to align them with internationally recognised principles and best practices in scholarly publishing. These responsibilities apply to Editors-in-Chief, handling editors, editorial-board members and guest editors, according to the authority assigned to them.

Within the ARCC editorial-governance structure, the assigned academic editor is responsible for the scholarly assessment of a manuscript and for the editorial decision recorded on that submission. Reviewer recommendations provide expert advice but do not replace editorial judgement. 

Editors must act consistently with the journal's Aims and Scope, Author Guidelines, Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics Policy and other applicable ARCC policies. Final decisions must remain under accountable human oversight. 

ARCC and its publishing staff may provide administrative, technical, legal, ethics and production support. Such support must not direct an editor to accept or reject a manuscript for financial, commercial, institutional, personal or political reasons. 

Initial Manuscript Assessment 

Before external peer review, editors should assess whether the submission: 

• Falls within the stated Aims and Scope of the selected journal. 

• Presents a sufficiently original, relevant and scientifically sound contribution for further evaluation. 

• Meets the applicable article-type, reporting and manuscript-preparation requirements. 

• Contains the required authorship, funding, conflict-of-interest, data-availability, ethics and consent information. 

• Shows no evident plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated content or other serious policy concern. 

• Can be evaluated fairly by reviewers with appropriate subject and methodological expertise. 

A manuscript may be returned for clarification or revision before review, transferred only with the author's agreement where an appropriate option exists, or rejected without external review when it is clearly outside scope, does not meet minimum scholarly or ethical requirements, or cannot be considered under journal policy. 

 Scope Governance 

Editors must apply the journal's Aims and Scope consistently and avoid accepting work solely because it is topical, commercially attractive or associated with a prominent author or institution. Editorial teams should periodically review published content, desk-rejection reasons and recurring scope questions to identify scope drift or the need to clarify the journal's Aims and Scope. 

Peer Review Oversight 

Editors are responsible for selecting suitable, independent reviewers and for ensuring that the review process follows the ARCC Peer Review Process. 

• Research manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. 

• Reviewers must have relevant subject or methodological expertise and no conflict that could reasonably affect impartiality. 

• Additional statistical, technical or specialist review may be requested where needed. 

• If an exceptional case proceeds with fewer than two external reports, the reason and the additional editorial oversight must be documented. 

• Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but must undergo the same identity, expertise, independence and conflict checks. 

• Editors must assess the quality, relevance and independence of review reports rather than relying only on the reviewers' recommendations. 

Any reviewer names, reviewer counts or peer review information displayed in article HTML, PDFs or metadata must accurately reflect the completed review process and the journal's confidentiality model. 

 Editorial Decisions 

Editorial decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection, or rejection with an invitation to submit a substantially revised work as a new manuscript. 

Decisions must be based on: 

• Scientific quality and originality. 

• Methodological and analytical rigour. 

• Relevance to the journal's scope and readership. 

• Adequacy of the evidence, interpretation and reporting. 

• Compliance with research and publication ethics. 

• The suitability of the selected reviewers and the adequacy of their reports. 

• The authors' response to material editorial and reviewer concerns. 

The editor remains responsible for the decision and should communicate the outcome and principal reasons clearly. Acceptance is not guaranteed by completion of peer review or revision.

Editorial Ethics, Fairness and Confidentiality 

 Confidentiality 

Submitted manuscripts and associated files are privileged and confidential communications. Editors must not disclose, distribute or use manuscripts, reviewer identities, review reports, correspondence, figures, supplementary material or unpublished data except as necessary for authorised editorial handling. 

Information obtained through editorial work must not be used for personal, professional, financial or competitive advantage. Confidentiality obligations continue after a decision has been made. 

 Fair and Non-Discriminatory Evaluation 

Editors must evaluate submissions without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, age, career stage, institutional affiliation, seniority, geographic location, political belief, funding status or personal reputation. 

Editorial judgement should focus on the manuscript's scholarly merit, relevance, reliability and ethical acceptability. 

 Respectful Editorial Conduct 

Editors should communicate professionally and must not tolerate abusive, defamatory, discriminatory or personally directed comments in editorial correspondence or peer review. Reviewer comments may be edited only to remove confidential information, identifying material or inappropriate language; their scientific meaning must not be altered.

Editorial decisions are independent of Article Processing Charge payments, waiver or discount requests, Open Access funding, sponsorship, advertising, institutional relationships, publisher commercial interests, journal metrics, political pressure and external influence. 

An editor must not receive or use an author's payment or waiver status as a factor in screening, reviewer selection, acceptance, rejection or publication priority. The scholarly acceptance decision must be completed independently before APC payment is requested. 

Where a legal, safety, research-integrity or publication-ethics concern arises, ARCC may pause or change a publication decision in accordance with the relevant policy. Such action must be based on the documented concern, not commercial preference. 

Editors, editorial-board members, guest editors and editorial staff involved in decisions must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, academic or personal relationship that could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, their impartiality. 

An editor must recuse themselves where, for example: 

• They are an author or contributor to the manuscript. 

• The manuscript is submitted by a close family member, personal associate, current colleague or member of the same immediate institutional unit. 

• They have a recent or ongoing research collaboration, supervisory, mentoring or competitive relationship with an author. 

• They have a financial, commercial, patent, consultancy, legal or other material interest related to the work. 

• They have expressed a strong prior position or have another circumstance that could reasonably create perceived bias. 

A conflicted manuscript must be assigned to an independent editor who has had no involvement in the conflicted relationship or the original decision. Editors must not select reviewers, access confidential reports or influence the outcome after recusal. 

Serving on the editorial boards of more than one ARCC journal is not, by itself, prohibited. Editors must nevertheless maintain current disclosures, preserve journal-specific confidentiality and recuse themselves whenever overlapping roles create a real, potential or perceived conflict. 

 Submissions from Editors, Board Members and ARCC Staff 

Manuscripts authored by an Editor-in-Chief, handling editor, editorial-board member, guest editor or member of ARCC staff must be handled independently. The author-editor must have no role in reviewer selection, access to confidential reports, discussion of the decision or the final outcome. 

Such manuscripts are subject to the same editorial and ethical requirements as all other submissions and are normally reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers. 

Editors must not upload manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence or unpublished data to public or third-party generative-AI systems where confidentiality, intellectual-property protection, privacy and data security cannot be assured. 

Generative AI must not make or replace editorial decisions. Limited use of a journal-approved tool for administrative or technical support may occur only where ARCC has confirmed appropriate safeguards and the use is consistent with applicable policy. 

The editor remains fully responsible for verifying all outputs, identifying errors or bias, protecting confidential information and making the final human editorial judgement.

Editors must ensure that manuscripts contain the declarations required by the ARCC Author Guidelines and Publication Ethics Policy before acceptance and publication. 

As applicable, editors must verify: 

• Human research ethics approval, the name of the approving committee or review board, the approval or reference number where available, and informed-consent requirements. 

• Animal research ethics approval, the name of the approving committee, the approval or reference number where available, and compliance with relevant welfare and regulatory requirements. 

• Clinical trial registration, biosafety approval, field-research permits or other regulatory authorisations where required. 

• A conflict-of-interest statement, including an explicit declaration when no relevant conflict exists. 

• Funding sources, grant identifiers and the role of the funder or sponsor. 

• A Data Availability Statement and any justified access restrictions. 

• Authorship and contributor information, including the Author Contribution Statement. 

• Disclosure of relevant AI or generative-AI use. 

Where a requirement is applicable, absence of the declaration or supporting evidence must be resolved before acceptance. ARCC may request ethics approvals, consent documentation, protocols, raw data or other records needed to verify compliance. 

The final HTML and PDF versions of an article should display the applicable declarations consistently. Where a declaration does not apply, the article should use the appropriate 'Not applicable' or no-conflict statement rather than omit the section without explanation. 

Editors must respond promptly and impartially to credible concerns raised before or after publication. Concerns may include plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, misleading image manipulation, authorship irregularities, undeclared conflicts, citation manipulation, peer review manipulation, paper-mill activity, unethical research or fraudulent use of artificial intelligence. 

Depending on the concern, editors may: 

• Request an explanation and supporting evidence from the authors. 

• Request raw data, original images, protocols, ethics documents, consent records or author-contribution information. 

• Seek additional independent expert review. 

• Pause review, production or publication while the concern is assessed. 

• Consult the Editor-in-Chief, editorial board, publisher or an appropriate ethics adviser. 

• Refer research-conduct allegations to the authors' institution, funder, regulator or another competent authority where appropriate. 

ARCC may conduct a preliminary assessment of publication-process concerns and determine the appropriate editorial action. Institutions or other competent bodies are ordinarily responsible for formal investigation of research conduct. ARCC retains responsibility for decisions concerning the manuscript or published record. 

Authors and other involved parties should be given a fair opportunity to respond. Investigations must be handled confidentially, proportionately and without retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith.

Editors should: 

• Select reviewers whose expertise matches the manuscript and who can provide an independent assessment. 

• Provide clear instructions, review criteria, confidentiality requirements and realistic deadlines. 

• Check and manage reviewer conflicts of interest before relying on a report. 

• Avoid repeatedly overburdening individual reviewers and monitor timeliness and review quality. 

• Protect reviewer identities in accordance with the double-blind review model. 

• Consider reviewer recommendations critically and resolve materially conflicting reports through editorial assessment or additional review. 

• Address reviewer misconduct, including confidentiality breaches, false identities, misuse of unpublished information, inappropriate AI use, discriminatory comments, manipulative citations or intentional delay. 

• Recognise reviewer contributions based on review quality, reliability, expertise and ethical conduct, not review volume alone. 

Editors should: 

• Provide clear and accessible submission, ethics and peer review requirements. 

• Treat authors respectfully, fairly and consistently. 

• Protect the confidentiality and intellectual property of submitted work. 

• Communicate material delays, revision requirements and decisions as clearly as possible. 

• Allow a reasonable opportunity to respond to reviewer and editorial concerns. 

• Avoid unnecessary or coercive citation requests and require citations only where they materially improve accuracy, context or reproducibility. 

• Provide access to the applicable appeal and complaint process. 

• Avoid delaying or obstructing a manuscript for personal, competitive or non-scholarly reasons. 

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a material error, procedural irregularity or significant misunderstanding affected the outcome. Appeals must be submitted in writing with a clear, evidence-based explanation. 

Where feasible, an appeal should be assessed by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. The journal may consult the Editor-in-Chief, editorial board or an additional independent reviewer. The outcome and reasons should be communicated to the author. 

Complaints concerning editor conduct, conflicts of interest, discrimination, confidentiality, unreasonable delay or editorial procedure must be handled separately from scientific disagreement and escalated under the applicable ARCC policy.

Special-issue manuscripts are subject to the same peer review, ethics, conflict-of-interest and editorial-independence standards as regular submissions. 

Guest editors must disclose relevant interests and must not handle their own submissions, work from close collaborators, or any manuscript for which impartiality could reasonably be questioned. An independent ARCC editor must handle such manuscripts. 

Sponsors, partner organisations and guest editors must not influence acceptance decisions. ARCC retains oversight and responsibility for the integrity of the special issue and its published record.

Editorial responsibility continues after publication. Editors must assess credible concerns raised by authors, readers, reviewers, institutions or other parties and take proportionate action under ARCC's Publication Ethics Policy. 

Post-publication actions may include: 

• Publishing a correction, corrigendum or erratum. 

• Issuing an Expression of Concern while a significant investigation remains unresolved. 

• Retracting an article when findings are unreliable or serious misconduct or ethical failure is established. 

• Removing content only in exceptional legal, safety or privacy circumstances. 

• Updating article metadata and linking notices permanently to the affected article. 

Decisions must protect the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record and must not be suppressed solely to protect an author, editor, institution, journal or publisher from reputational harm.

Editors should support diverse and appropriately qualified editorial boards and reviewer pools, inclusive editorial practices and equitable manuscript evaluation. Diversity considerations must complement, not replace, the requirements for expertise, independence, integrity and scholarly quality. 

Editors should: 

• Uphold ARCC policies and the stated scope and publication schedule of the journal. 

• Contribute to the accuracy, relevance and integrity of the journal's scholarly record. 

• Protect readers from unreliable, misleading or unethical content. 

• Support transparent journal information, accurate metadata and clear corrections or notices. 

• Work constructively with editorial-office and production staff while preserving editorial independence. 

• Contribute to periodic review of editorial-board composition, journal scope, peer review quality and policy implementation. 

ARCC should retain appropriate records of manuscript screening, reviewer selection, identity and conflict checks, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, correspondence, appeals, ethics documentation and post-publication actions in accordance with its record-management requirements. 

Editorial teams should periodically review processing times, reviewer numbers and quality, documented exceptions, scope compliance, mandatory article declarations, complaints, appeals and corrections. Published information about the editorial process must accurately reflect actual practice. 

ARCC periodically reviews and updates this policy to reflect changes in editorial procedures, publication ethics, law, technology and internationally recognised scholarly publishing practices. The latest version published on the ARCC website applies to current editorial activity. 

Last reviewed: June 2026

• Publication Ethics Policy 

• Author Guidelines 

• Peer Review Process 

• Role of Reviewers 

• Open Access Policy 

• Article Processing Charges Policy 

• Copyright and Licensing Policy 

• Special Issue Policy 

Editors who require guidance regarding conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, appeals, peer review, AI use, post-publication matters or policy interpretation should contact the ARCC Editorial Office through the official support channels available on the ARCC Journals website.