Editorial Responsibilities
Editors at Insights in Biology and Medicine (IBM) are entrusted to uphold research integrity, fairness, transparency, and inclusivity. This page defines the minimum responsibilities for the Editor-in-Chief, Section/Associate Editors, Guest Editors, and the Managing/Editorial Office.
- Scope Manuscript handling from submission to post-publication updates.
- Model Double-blind peer review for research content; open access (CC BY 4.0).
- Principles Integrity · Impartiality · Confidentiality · Accountability · Reproducibility.
1) Role-Specific Responsibilities
Editor-in-Chief
- Steward editorial policy; ensure alignment with ethics and legal requirements.
- Oversee escalations, appeals, and research integrity investigations.
- Calibrate decision standards across Sections; monitor KPIs (time to decision, revision cycles).
Section/Associate Editors
- Conduct scope & quality triage and manage peer review.
- Ensure ethics approvals and data/code availability are verified.
- Write evidence-based decision letters with actionable revisions.
Guest Editors
- Adhere to IBM standards; declare and manage conflicts of interest (COIs).
- Do not handle submissions where they are authors or have relevant conflicts.
- Maintain reviewer diversity and timelines for special issues.
Managing/Editorial Office
- Run integrity checks (plagiarism, image forensics), metadata QA, and checklist enforcement.
- Coordinate communications; track SLAs and escalations.
- Handoff to production; ensure DOI/metadata readiness.
2) Impartiality, Bias Mitigation & COIs
- Disclose all editor COIs annually and per manuscript; recuse where appropriate.
- Avoid handling manuscripts from the same lab/department, recent co-authors (3–5 years), or close personal ties.
- Use objective criteria and avoid coercive citations or preferential treatment.
- Maintain reviewer diversity (geography, gender, career stage, methodology) to reduce bias.
3) Confidentiality & Data Protection
- Keep submissions, identities, and reviews confidential; use the platform for all exchanges where possible.
- Do not use or disseminate unpublished data for personal advantage.
- Protect personal data per applicable regulations; purge local copies after decision.
4) Peer Review Oversight
- Triage: Assess scope/novelty, ethics, reporting basics, and technical readiness within 7 days.
- Reviewer selection: Choose experts; screen for COIs; set clear due dates and reminders.
- Quality control: Ensure reviews are respectful, evidence-based, and free of inappropriate requests.
- Decision-making: Synthesize reports; provide transparent rationale and numbered action items.
Target first decision ≤ 35 days; communicate delays proactively.
5) Research Integrity & Ethics
- Verify human/animal approvals, consent, and study registrations where applicable.
- Check data/code availability statements and repository links (DOIs/accessions).
- Review similarity reports and image forensics; obtain originals if flagged.
- Escalate suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or undisclosed COIs to the editorial office/EiC.
When in doubt, pause the process and initiate a documented inquiry; keep communications neutral and factual.
6) Reproducibility & Reporting Standards
- Require adequate methodological detail, pre-registration references when relevant, and statistical transparency (effect sizes, CIs, multiple-testing corrections).
- Apply discipline-appropriate standards (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE, STARD).
- Encourage data/code deposition in trusted repositories and use of persistent identifiers.
7) Communication Standards
- Use respectful, concise language; avoid prescriptive or dismissive tone.
- Provide clear revision instructions with justification and examples.
- Record all substantive decisions and rationales in the system.
8) Complaints, Appeals & Conflicts
Editors must acknowledge complaints promptly, log them, and route to an uninvolved senior editor/EiC. Appeals should be evidence-based; consider independent review where appropriate. Maintain impartiality and avoid defensiveness.
9) Post-Publication Responsibilities
- Address credible concerns about published work in a timely way.
- Issue corrections for substantive errors; consider expressions of concern or retractions for serious issues.
- Ensure metadata relationships (isCorrectionOf/isRetractionOf) are deposited and article pages indicate updates.
10) Timelines, KPIs & Continuous Improvement
| KPI | Target | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Time to initial triage | ≤ 7 days | Desk decisions with constructive guidance where appropriate |
| Time to first decision | ≤ 35 days | Depends on reviewer availability and complexity |
| Reviewer completion rate | ≥ 70% | Track and refresh pools; retire chronically late reviewers |
| Corrections turnaround | ≤ 14 days | From confirmation to publication of notice |
11) Working Checklists
Pre-Review Checklist
- ???? Scope/fit & novelty verified
- ???? Ethics approvals/consent/registration present as required
- ???? Data/Code statements with DOIs/accessions
- ???? Similarity and image checks completed
- ???? Blinding verified (author IDs removed)
- ???? Reviewer shortlist: diverse, qualified, non-conflicted
Pre-Acceptance Checklist
- ???? All revisions addressed; point-by-point verified
- ???? Methods and statistics meet standards
- ???? Figures/tables accessible; alt text and legends adequate
- ???? Third-party permissions documented
- ???? Final COI/funding statements complete
- ???? Data/Code links active; repository citations included
12) Training & Accountability
- Annual training on ethics, COIs, bias mitigation, and inclusive practices.
- Calibration exercises to harmonize decision thresholds across editors.
- Periodic audits and feedback loops to improve processes and timelines.
Plain-language note: Editors must be fair, rigorous, and transparent; guard confidentiality; manage conflicts; and correct the record when necessary.