Editor's Guidelines

This comprehensive Editorial Operational Manual outlines the full set of responsibilities, ethical expectations, workflow procedures, decision-making rules, conflict management guidelines, and OJS-specific operational steps for Editors and Associate Editors of CJOG. These guidelines ensure consistency, integrity, transparency, and efficiency throughout the editorial and peer-review process, aligning with COPE, WAME, ICMJE, and international best practices.

1. Editorial Roles and Structure

CJOG operates through a multi-level editorial structure:

• Editor-in-Chief (EIC) – Oversees journal operations, final decision authority.
• Associate Editors – Handle assigned manuscripts, manage peer review, propose decisions.
• Editorial Board Members – Provide subject expertise, assist in reviews, advise on policy.
• Guest Editors – Manage special issues with EIC oversight.

1.1 Core Expectations for All Editors

• Maintain editorial independence.
• Ensure unbiased decision-making based on scientific merit.
• Communicate professionally and promptly with authors and reviewers.
• Uphold confidentiality.
• Avoid conflicts of interest.
• Ensure timely workflow progression.

2. Editorial Workflow Overview (Full Cycle)

The editorial process consists of eight main stages:

1. Initial Submission Screening
2. Plagiarism & Technical Evaluation
3. Reviewer Selection & Invitation
4. Review Monitoring & Deadline Management
5. Editorial Evaluation of Reviewer Feedback
6. Decision Issuance
7. Revision Handling
8. Final Acceptance & Production Transfer

3. Initial Screening Duties

Upon receiving a new manuscript, the editor must perform a comprehensive evaluation within 48–72 hours.

3.1 Suitability Check

• Does the manuscript fit CJOG’s aims and scope?
• Is the submission format acceptable?
• Is the research clinically or scientifically significant?

3.2 Ethical Compliance Screening

• Check IRB approval statement.
• Verify informed consent for case reports.
• Ensure conflict-of-interest and funding disclosures.
• Examine animal research statements (if applicable).

3.3 Similarity/Plagiarism Checks

The editorial office performs similarity screening, but the editor must interpret results:

• Similarity index < 15% – generally acceptable.
• Similarity index 15–25% – editor must evaluate context.
• Similarity > 25% – usually requires author clarification or immediate rejection.

4. Assigning Reviewers

Reviewer assignment is one of the most critical editorial responsibilities.

4.1 Selection Criteria

• Expertise in the manuscript’s subject area
• Previous performance (quality, punctuality)
• No conflicts of interest
• Diversity and fairness (gender, geography, discipline)

4.2 Minimum Reviewer Count

CJOG requires a minimum of two independent reviewers for all research articles.

4.3 Reviewer Invitation

Dear Dr. [Name],

You are invited to review a manuscript titled “[Title]” for the Clinical Journal 
of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CJOG). Based on your expertise, we believe you 
would provide a valuable assessment.

Please let us know within 48 hours whether you can accept this review.

Sincerely,
Editorial Office, CJOG

5. Monitoring the Review Process

5.1 Reviewer Deadlines

• Standard deadline: 14 days
• Extensions: up to 7 days

5.2 Reminder Responsibilities

Editors must monitor overdue reviews and send reminders at:

• Day 14
• Day 21
• Day 28 (final reminder)

6. Evaluating Reviewer Comments

Editors must analyze reviewer reports for quality and fairness.

6.1 Indicators of High-Quality Reviews

• Specific, constructive feedback
• Clear explanation of deficiencies
• Evidence-based comments
• Respectful tone

6.2 Indicators of Problematic Reviews

• Overly brief or vague
• Inappropriate or biased remarks
• Requests beyond the scope of the research
• Unprofessional language

7. Editorial Decision Categories

Editors may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject
• Resubmit for New Review

7.1 Decision-Making Guidelines

7.2 Editorial Decision Letter Template

Dear [Author Name],

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled “[Title]” to CJOG.

Based on the reviewer feedback and editorial evaluation, we request a 
[Minor/Major] revision. Please address all reviewer comments thoroughly 
and resubmit within 14 days.

Sincerely,
[Editor Name]
Associate Editor, CJOG

8. Revision Handling

8.1 Assessing Revised Submissions

Editors must evaluate:

• Completeness of responses
• Quality of revisions
• Appropriateness of rebuttal
• Consistency with reviewer expectations

8.2 Re-Review Needs

Major revisions typically require re-review; minor revisions may be handled editorially.

9. Handling Ethical Concerns & Misconduct

Editors must be trained to identify potential ethical breaches.

9.1 Types of Misconduct

• Plagiarism
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Image manipulation
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Duplicate submission

9.2 Editor Protocol for Suspected Misconduct

1. Document the concern.
2. Notify the Editorial Office.
3. Contact authors for clarification.
4. If unresolved, escalate to EIC.
5. If needed, follow COPE flowcharts.

10. Managing Conflicts of Interest (COI)

Editors must recuse themselves when:

• They are affiliated with the author’s institution.
• They have collaborated with the author in past 3 years.
• They have financial ties to the research topic.
• They feel personal bias.

11. Confidentiality & Data Handling

Editors must maintain strict confidentiality:

• Do not share manuscripts externally.
• Do not use unpublished data for personal research.
• Delete files once duties are complete.

12. Editorial Communication Standards

12.1 Tone Requirements

• Professional
• Clear and concise
• Non-judgmental
• Supportive and respectful

12.2 Common Email Templates

Dear [Author],

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript “[Title]” has been 
accepted for publication in CJOG. Your work makes a valuable contribution 
to the field.

Warm regards,
Editorial Office

13. Timeframe Expectations for Editors

14. Protecting Editorial Independence

Editors must uphold independence by:

• Separating editorial decisions from APC considerations
• Ignoring reviewer identity if blinded
• Avoiding pressure from authors or external stakeholders

15. Special Issues & Guest Editors

Guest editors must:

• Adhere strictly to CJOG’s editorial workflow
• Avoid inviting reviewers with conflicts
• Submit periodic progress reports

16. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal rejection decisions with justification. Editors must:

• Review the appeal impartially
• Consult the EIC if needed
• Re-evaluate reviewer comments
• Issue a written response

17. Post-Acceptance Responsibilities

• Ensure metadata accuracy
• Verify final files
• Approve for production transfer

Conclusion

These comprehensive Editor’s Guidelines ensure CJOG maintains transparency, efficiency, integrity, and excellence in peer-reviewed publishing. Editors are entrusted with safeguarding scientific credibility, and adherence to these standards ensures fairness and consistency throughout the editorial process.