Guide for Editor

The Journal of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality, editorial independence, research integrity, and publication ethics. Editors play a central role in ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, transparently, and consistently.

These guidelines establish the responsibilities and expected conduct of the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Section Editors, and other members of the Editorial Board involved in manuscript evaluation and publication decisions.

1. Editorial Responsibility

Editors are responsible for managing manuscripts objectively and efficiently from submission through final decision. Editorial decisions should be based primarily on:

  • Scientific quality
  • Originality and significance
  • Methodological rigor
  • Ethical compliance
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Clarity and completeness of reporting

Editors must not allow commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, academic status, or other irrelevant considerations to influence editorial decisions.

2. Initial Manuscript Assessment

Upon submission, the assigned editor should conduct an initial editorial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
  • Meets the journal's basic submission requirements.
  • Demonstrates sufficient scientific relevance and originality.
  • Contains appropriate ethical declarations where applicable.
  • Provides adequate author, funding, and conflict-of-interest information.
  • Meets basic standards of academic presentation.
  • Raises no obvious concerns regarding plagiarism or research misconduct.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review when it is clearly outside the journal's scope, scientifically unsuitable, substantially deficient, or otherwise inappropriate for consideration.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Editors should select reviewers based on their:

  • Subject-matter expertise.
  • Methodological knowledge.
  • Relevant research and publication experience.
  • Independence from the authors.
  • Availability to complete the review within the required timeframe.

Editors should normally seek at least two independent reviewers where external peer review is appropriate.

Reviewers with significant conflicts of interest should not be selected.

4. Confidentiality

Editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and associated editorial correspondence.

Editors must not:

  • Disclose manuscript content unnecessarily.
  • Reveal reviewer identities to authors where the journal's review model requires confidentiality.
  • Share unpublished manuscript information without appropriate authorization.
  • Use unpublished information obtained through editorial handling for personal or professional advantage.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the editorial decision and, where appropriate, after publication.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose and appropriately manage any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

An editor should not handle a manuscript when they:

  • Are an author or co-author of the manuscript.
  • Have recently collaborated with one or more authors.
  • Have a close personal or professional relationship with an author.
  • Have a direct financial or commercial interest in the research.
  • Have another relationship that could reasonably compromise editorial impartiality.

When necessary, the manuscript should be transferred to another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict.

6. Fair and Impartial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions must be based on the merits of the manuscript rather than characteristics of the authors.

Editors must not discriminate on the basis of:

  • Nationality
  • Ethnicity
  • Gender
  • Religion
  • Institutional affiliation
  • Academic rank
  • Political or personal views
  • Commercial relationships

The same editorial standards should be applied consistently to all submissions.

7. Peer-Review Management

Editors should monitor the peer-review process to ensure that:

  • Appropriate reviewers are selected.
  • Reviewer conflicts are identified.
  • Reviews are sufficiently substantive and relevant.
  • Excessively delayed reviews are followed up.
  • Authors receive appropriate and constructive feedback.
  • Reviewer confidentiality is maintained.

Editors may seek additional reviews when reviewer recommendations are contradictory, insufficient, or raise significant scientific or ethical concerns.

8. Editorial Decisions

Editors should evaluate reviewer reports critically rather than automatically following a reviewer's recommendation.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final decision should reflect the overall scientific and ethical assessment of the manuscript.

Editors may reject a manuscript despite favorable reviewer recommendations when significant scientific, ethical, scope-related, or publication-integrity concerns remain.

Likewise, editors may request additional review when necessary.

9. Reviewer Misconduct

Editors should take appropriate action if there is evidence that a reviewer has:

  • Breached confidentiality.
  • Used unpublished information improperly.
  • Provided discriminatory or abusive comments.
  • Failed to disclose a relevant conflict of interest.
  • Attempted to influence publication unfairly.
  • Engaged in inappropriate citation manipulation.

The editor may remove the reviewer from the assignment and, where appropriate, investigate the matter under the journal's publication-ethics procedures.

10. Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

Editors have a responsibility to identify and appropriately respond to suspected:

  • Plagiarism
  • Duplicate or redundant publication
  • Fabrication or falsification of data
  • Image manipulation
  • Authorship disputes
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Ethical approval deficiencies
  • Inappropriate patient-identifying information
  • Manipulation of citations
  • Peer-review manipulation
  • Other forms of research misconduct

Editors should not dismiss credible concerns without appropriate consideration.

Where misconduct is suspected, the Editorial Office should follow applicable Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance and the journal's research-misconduct procedures.

11. Ethical Approval and Clinical Research

For manuscripts involving human participants, patient data, clinical trials, or animals, editors should verify that appropriate ethical information has been provided.

Where necessary, editors may request:

  • Ethics committee or Institutional Review Board approval.
  • Approval/reference numbers.
  • Informed-consent statements.
  • Clinical trial registration information.
  • Animal ethics documentation.
  • Additional supporting documentation.

Editors should request clarification whenever ethical compliance is uncertain.

12. Statistical and Methodological Quality

Editors should consider whether the research methods and statistical analyses are appropriate for the study.

Where the manuscript involves complex methodology or statistical analysis beyond the editor's expertise, an appropriate specialist reviewer or statistical reviewer may be consulted.

Editors should not require authors to perform unnecessary analyses merely to satisfy personal preferences.

13. Revision Management

When revisions are requested, editors should evaluate whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive issues raised during review.

Editors may:

  • Accept the revised manuscript.
  • Request further revisions.
  • Return the manuscript to reviewers.
  • Seek an additional expert opinion.
  • Reject the manuscript if fundamental concerns remain unresolved.

Authors should be given reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive reviewer comments.

14. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that:

  • A significant factual error affected the decision.
  • There was a serious procedural irregularity.
  • A reviewer misunderstood a central aspect of the manuscript.
  • Relevant evidence was improperly disregarded.

Appeals should be based on substantive arguments rather than disagreement with editorial judgment alone.

Where appropriate, an appeal may be reviewed by another qualified editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

The appeal process should be handled independently and fairly.

15. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Editors are responsible for addressing significant errors discovered after publication.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may publish:

  • A correction or erratum.
  • A clarification.
  • An expression of concern.
  • A retraction.

Retractions should be considered when published findings are sufficiently unreliable because of major error or research misconduct.

Editorial action should follow recognized publication-ethics principles and applicable COPE guidance.

16. Post-Publication Concerns

Editors should consider credible post-publication concerns concerning the integrity, accuracy, or ethical status of published work.

Where appropriate, editors may request information from authors, institutions, ethics committees, or other relevant parties.

All investigations should be conducted fairly, confidentially, and without prejudging the outcome.

17. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must remain independent of:

  • Advertising revenue.
  • Sponsorship.
  • Article processing charges.
  • Commercial relationships.
  • Publisher interests.
  • Personal relationships.
  • External political or institutional pressure.

Payment of an Article Processing Charge, where applicable, must never guarantee acceptance or influence the editorial decision.

Editors must ensure a clear separation between editorial decision-making and commercial activities.

18. Artificial Intelligence and Editorial Tools

Editors may use appropriate technological or AI-assisted tools to support administrative and editorial tasks where permitted. However, confidential manuscript information must not be entered into external systems that do not provide appropriate confidentiality and data protection.

AI tools must not replace editorial judgment.

Editors remain responsible for ensuring that editorial decisions are based on appropriate scientific, ethical, and peer-review considerations.

19. Communication with Authors

Editorial correspondence should be:

  • Professional
  • Clear
  • Respectful
  • Evidence-based
  • Consistent with journal policy

Editors should provide sufficient information to allow authors to understand the basis of editorial decisions without unnecessarily revealing confidential reviewer information.

20. Editorial Board Responsibilities

Members of the Editorial Board should:

  • Maintain appropriate expertise in their assigned fields.
  • Handle manuscripts objectively.
  • Declare conflicts of interest.
  • Maintain confidentiality.
  • Support the journal's publication-ethics standards.
  • Assist with peer-review and editorial development when requested.
  • Promote scientific integrity and responsible scholarly communication.

Editorial Board membership does not provide preferential treatment for manuscripts submitted by board members or their collaborators.

21. Performance and Timeliness

Editors should make reasonable efforts to ensure that manuscripts are processed within appropriate timeframes.

They should monitor:

  • Time from submission to initial assessment.
  • Reviewer response times.
  • Time to editorial decision.
  • Revision handling.
  • Publication workflow.

Efficiency should not come at the expense of rigorous peer review or ethical oversight.

22. Final Editorial Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the journal's editorial standards, publication decisions, and adherence to publication ethics.

Editors should exercise independent professional judgment and seek guidance from the Editor-in-Chief or appropriate ethics resources when complex scientific or ethical issues arise.

The Journal of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology expects all editors to uphold the principles of confidentiality, fairness, transparency, editorial independence, scientific integrity, and responsible publication throughout the editorial process.