Editorial Responsibilities

This comprehensive guide outlines the core responsibilities, ethical obligations, and operational duties of editors at the Clinical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CJOG). These responsibilities ensure transparency, fairness, integrity, and scientific rigor throughout the editorial and peer-review process. CJOG aligns with COPE, ICMJE, WAME, and global open-access standards to maintain best practices across all editorial procedures.

1. Commitment to Editorial Independence

Editors must maintain complete independence from:

• Commercial interests
• Authors' personal or institutional affiliations
• Internal or external pressures
• Financial considerations (APC decisions are separate)

2. Fair and Unbiased Decision Making

2.1 Key Responsibilities

• Treat all manuscripts impartially regardless of author gender, nationality, ethnicity, institution, or seniority.
• Ensure transparent application of CJOG’s editorial criteria to all submissions.
• Protect editors and reviewers from undue influence.

2.2 Examples of Unacceptable Bias

• Rejecting a manuscript due to poor English rather than evaluating content.
• Providing preferential treatment to researchers from elite institutions.
• Disfavoring early-career researchers without evidence.

3. Responsibility for Peer-Review Management

Editors are custodians of the peer-review system and must ensure that manuscripts are evaluated by qualified, independent experts.

3.1 Reviewer Selection

• Select reviewers with appropriate expertise.
• Ensure no conflicts of interest exist.
• Maintain diversity across geography, gender, and discipline.
• Monitor reviewer performance for quality and punctuality.

3.2 Reviewer Guidance and Support

Editors must ensure reviewers receive clear instructions regarding:

• Evaluation criteria
• Ethical expectations
• Sensitivity in language and feedback
• Confidential handling of manuscript content

3.3 Confidentiality Standards

• All manuscript content, reviewer identities, and reports are confidential.
• Editors must protect anonymity in double-blind contexts.

4. Transparency and Integrity in Editorial Workflow

4.1 Timeliness

• Screen submissions within 48–72 hours
• Assign reviewers within 2–5 days
• Monitor review deadlines closely
• Issue decisions promptly after review

4.2 Communication

Editors must maintain professional, respectful, and timely communication at all stages of the editorial process.

4.3 Documentation

Every decision must be documented within the OJS platform, including:

• Rationale for decisions
• Review summaries
• Ethical concerns
• Revision assessments

5. Ensuring Ethical Compliance

Editors must ensure that all manuscripts adhere to ethical standards involving:

• IRB approval for human studies
• Informed patient consent for case reports
• Animal ethics approvals (ARRIVE guidelines)
• Clinical trial registration
• Data transparency and authenticity
• Conflict of interest disclosure
• Funding transparency

5.1 Avoiding Misconduct and Ethical Breaches

• Plagiarism (direct or mosaic)
• Data manipulation
• Image falsification
• Duplicate publication
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

5.2 COPE Workflow Usage

When misconduct is suspected, editors must follow COPE flowcharts for:

• Image irregularities
• Ethics approval concerns
• Data inconsistencies
• Complaints or appeals

6. Revision and Re-Review Responsibilities

6.1 Assessing Revisions

• All reviewer comments have been addressed
• Response matrices are clear and relevant
• New data or analyses are valid and properly incorporated
• Revisions do not introduce new concerns

6.2 Criteria for Re-Review

• Major revisions → almost always require re-review
• Minor revisions → can often be assessed editorially

7. Decision Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for issuing balanced, evidence-based decisions.

7.1 Decision Types

• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject
• Resubmit for full review

7.2 Decision Criteria

7.3 Decision Letter Expectations

• Polite and constructive tone
• Clear explanation of rationale
• No personal remarks
• Specific guidance for improvement

8. Managing Appeals

Authors may appeal decisions if they believe:

• A misunderstanding occurred
• A reviewer comment is demonstrably incorrect
• Additional clarifications could change the decision

8.1 Appeal Handling Procedure

1. Evaluate appeal letter for clarity and professionalism.
2. Re-examine reviewer reports and editorial notes.
3. Consult Editor-in-Chief when necessary.
4. Issue a formal appeal decision letter.

9. Conflicts of Interest (COI) for Editors

Examples of Editor COI

• Reviewer or editor has collaborated with author within past 3 years
• Shared institutional affiliation
• Financial interest in outcomes of study
• Family or personal relationship

Required Actions

• Declare COI immediately
• Transfer manuscript to another editor
• Avoid contact with conflicted parties

10. Confidentiality Responsibilities

Editors must treat manuscripts and related materials as strictly confidential:

• No sharing files with unauthorized individuals
• No discussion of manuscript content outside editorial channels
• No use of unpublished data for personal research

11. Upholding Journal Quality Standards

Editors must ensure CJOG maintains:

• High editorial and peer-review quality
• Academic rigor
• Clinical relevance
• Ethical integrity

12. Post-Publication Responsibilities

Editors share responsibility for:

• Corrections (errata)
• Retractions
• Editorial expressions of concern
• Addressing post-publication feedback

12.1 Correction Triggers

• Typographical errors affecting interpretation
• Incorrect author affiliations
• Missing funding statements
• Minor figure labeling inconsistencies

12.2 Retraction Triggers

Conclusion

Editorial responsibilities encompass fairness, diligence, ethical vigilance, scientific understanding, and transparent communication. By upholding these responsibilities, editors help ensure that CJOG maintains excellence in scholarly publishing and contributes meaningfully to the fields of obstetrics and gynecology.