1) Editorial Roles & Responsibilities

2) Initial Triage (Days 0–7)

1. Scope & fit: Aligns with Aims & Scope; novelty/advance beyond literature.
2. Reporting basics: Abstract/keywords complete; ethics approvals where applicable; trial registration if required.
3. Integrity checks: Plagiarism/similarity, figure forensics (splices, contrast), data/code statements present.
4. Technical readiness: Anonymization for double-blind; figures and tables usable for review.
5. Decision: Send to review or desk reject with constructive guidance.

3) Reviewer Selection & Management

• Expertise: Choose reviewers with methodological and subject expertise; avoid author-suggested reviewers with non-institutional emails.
• Diversity & balance: Geographic, career-stage, and gender diversity; avoid clique effects.
• COI screening: Exclude recent coauthors (last 3–5 years), same department, collaborators on grants, or personal relationships.
• Blinding: Preserve double-blind; strip identifying file metadata before sending.
• Timelines: Invite 3–4 reviewers aiming for 2–3 completed reports; set clear due dates and reminders.

4) Decision Criteria & Letters

Base decisions on concordance of reviewer evidence and editorial appraisal. Provide a concise, respectful letter summarizing:

1. Strengths and contributions.
2. Major issues (methods, stats, controls, ethics, data availability).
3. Specific, numbered action items for revision.
4. Reporting standard(s) to apply (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/ARRIVE/STARD).

5) Ethics, COI & Sensitive Content

• Human research: Confirm IRB approval, consent, and registration IDs where needed; check privacy/de-identification.
• Animal research: IACUC/REC approvals; welfare reporting and humane endpoints.
• Competing interests: Ensure disclosures from all authors; query ambiguous relationships (equity, consulting, patents).
• Third-party materials: Verify permissions/licensing for figures, datasets, and instruments if proprietary.
• AI tool use: Require AI-use statements; prohibit AI as author; watch for fabricated citations.

6) Research Integrity Checks

• Similarity screening: Review similarity reports; distinguish overlap types (methods/common text vs. unattributed copying).
• Image forensics: Look for duplicated bands/panels; require original uncropped images if flagged.
• Statistics: Check internal consistency (n, p-values, CI, multiple testing corrections).
• Data/code: Validate repository DOIs/accessions; if controlled-access, ensure clear request path.

7) Handling Revisions

1. Ask for a point-by-point response mapping each reviewer/editor comment to changes.
2. Request tracked changes plus a clean copy.
3. Re-review by original reviewers for major changes; editor-only for minor clarifications.
4. Ensure updated data/code links and ethical statements if new data added.

8) Appeals & Complaints

Authors may appeal decisions by providing a brief, evidence-based rationale addressing specific points. The EiC or an uninvolved senior editor evaluates appeals; original reviewers may be reconsulted or independent reviewers engaged. Complaints about process, bias, or conduct are logged and investigated by the editorial office.

9) Post-Publication Updates

• Corrections: For material errors that do not invalidate conclusions; link bidirectionally to the Version of Record (VoR).
• Retractions/Expressions of Concern: For serious integrity issues or unresolved concerns; follow transparent notices and metadata flags.
• Commentaries/Replies: Facilitate scholarly discourse with fair tone and evidence-based arguments.

10) Special Issues & Collections

• Pre-approve a scope, timeline, and guest editor team; document COIs.
• Editorial independence: no guaranteed acceptance; same standards as regular issues.
• Track submissions with a special-issue tag; maintain normal peer-review rigor.

11) Timelines & SLAs

12) Communications & Tone

Communicate respectfully and concisely. Avoid prescriptive “must accept” language; instead, outline what evidence is needed to support claims. Encourage constructive framing and highlight paths to improve rigor and clarity.

Dear {Corresponding Author},

Thank you for submitting “{Title}” to Insights in Biology and Medicine.

Summary of strengths:
• {brief points}

To proceed, please address the following items:
1) Methods/controls/statistics: {details}
2) Data/code availability: {repository/DOI or controlled access route}
3) Reporting standards: {CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/ARRIVE/STARD elements}

Decision: {Minor/Major Revision}
Please provide a point-by-point response and a tracked-changes version.

Sincerely,
{Handling Editor}

13) Editorial Checklists

• Scope fit and novelty assessed
• Ethics approvals/consents verified
• Data/Code statements with repository links present
• Plagiarism and image checks completed
• Blinding verified; author identifiers removed
• Reviewer shortlist (diverse, qualified, non-conflicted)
• All essential revisions completed and verified
• Statistics and effect sizes consistent
• Figures/tables accessible; alt text/legend quality
• Data/code DOIs active; third-party permissions recorded
• Final COI/funding statements complete

14) Confidentiality & Data Protection

• Keep manuscripts and reviewer identities confidential.
• Use the platform for communications; avoid personal email when possible.
• Do not use or share unpublished data for personal advantage.

15) Handling Concerns & Misconduct

Route allegations through the editorial office. Maintain a documented timeline, preserve evidence, seek author responses, and (when appropriate) contact institutions or funders. Outcomes may include corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions. Keep communications neutral and factual.

16) Training & Continuous Improvement

• Annual refresh on ethics, COI, and bias mitigation.
• Shadowing and calibration exercises for new editors.
• Periodic audits of decision consistency and turnaround metrics.