Editors’ Guidelines

As an editor, your role is pivotal in managing the peer review process, making informed decisions on manuscript acceptance or rejection, and encouraging the submission of high-quality research. Below is a set of best practice guidelines, inspired by the COPE Code of Conduct, to support you in these responsibilities.

Selecting Reviewers

  • Choose Reviewers Carefully: Select reviewers who are well-qualified to assess the manuscript’s content and are free from any conflicts of interest that might compromise objectivity.
  • Aim for Diverse Insights: Ideally, choose at least three reviewers to obtain a balanced and comprehensive assessment.
  • Monitor Review Quality: Avoid re-assigning reviewers who consistently submit impolite, low-quality, or delayed reviews, as they may impact the overall review standard.
  • Expand the Reviewer Pool: Use a range of sources, including bibliographic databases and professional networks, to identify new and qualified reviewers—not just personal contacts—to ensure a diverse and fair selection.

Managing the Review Process

  • Timely Decisions: Aim to reach an initial decision on each manuscript within three months, ensuring the review process is efficient and authors receive timely feedback.
  • Handle a Broad Scope: Process all assigned manuscripts, even if a submission falls slightly outside your immediate expertise. While Section Editors strive to assign appropriately, they also balance workloads across the editorial board. Reassigning a paper should be rare.
  • Clear Communication with Authors: Communicate every decision clearly. Even if you are aligning with reviewers’ recommendations, provide a brief summary or comment on their feedback to support transparency and author understanding.
  • Uphold Review Standards: Ensure that any deviation from the peer review process is minimal and well-justified. This reinforces trust and consistency in the review process.
  • Oversee Reviewer Integrity: Require reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before they accept an assignment to ensure impartial evaluations.
  • Monitor Reviewer Performance: Keep an eye on reviewer quality and take steps to uphold a high standard, offering feedback or adjustments as necessary.

Points for Reviewers to Address

  • Ethical Concerns and Misconduct: Encourage reviewers to be vigilant for ethical issues in research design or data handling. This includes alerting you to any concerns regarding data manipulation, improper methodologies, or potential misconduct.
  • Originality and Plagiarism Detection: Reviewers should assess the originality of the research and flag any concerns about redundant publication or suspected plagiarism.

As an editor, your guidance and diligence ensure the publication of valuable, ethical, and credible research. Thank you for your dedication to maintaining the highest standards in peer-reviewed scholarship.

 

Making Editorial Recommendations

  • Balanced and Informed Decisions: Editors should base their recommendations on both the peer reviews and their own assessment of the manuscript’s importance, originality, clarity, and scientific validity, as well as how well it aligns with the journal’s scope and objectives.
  • Immediate Rejection of Unsuitable Submissions: If a manuscript clearly falls below the standards of the Journal of Narcotics Research and Sustainable Practices, editors may recommend immediate rejection to ensure only relevant and high-quality research is considered.
  • Finality of Acceptance Decisions: Once a manuscript is accepted, editors should avoid reversing this decision unless significant issues are later identified that would warrant a reconsideration.
  • Consistency Across Editorial Changes: New editors should respect decisions made by their predecessors, refraining from reversing prior acceptances unless critical problems arise.
  • Handling Misconduct or Authorship Disputes: Any suspected cases of misconduct, unethical behavior, or disputes over authorship should be promptly reported to the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher for further investigation.

 

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

JNRSP encourages ongoing dialogue and transparency. Authors and readers can engage in post-publication discussions through the journal’s website or by reaching out to the editor. If errors or updates are needed, JNRSP has policies to ensure clarity and accuracy.

Correction Policy

Ensuring Accurate Scientific Record: In cases where errors that significantly impact the scientific validity, methods, results, or conclusions are identified, JNRSP will publish an erratum. Errata are treated as distinct articles, allowing for a clear record of the corrections made.

Examples that Warrant an Erratum:

  • A figure or table is incorrectly labeled or referenced.
  • Missing figures or tables that affect understanding.
  • Inclusion of incorrect data in a table.
  • Omission of an author’s name in the publication.

For significant errors that affect the interpretation or credibility of the article, JNRSP will issue a formal notice of correction linked to the original article. Authors are encouraged to notify the editorial office promptly if they notice any errors post-publication.

Content Removal Policy

Protecting Reader and Public Safety: In rare cases, JNRSP reserves the right to remove a published article. This action is taken only under serious circumstances, such as:

  • The article contains defamatory information or incorrect data that could mislead readers about a method or researcher.
  • The article infringes on intellectual property, privacy rights, or other legal entitlements.
  • The content poses a severe and immediate risk to safety or integrity if acted upon.

Addenda

Supplementing Published Research: When authors need to provide additional information or clarifications that do not correct an error, JNRSP allows for the publication of an addendum. These addenda offer added context or updates that complement the original study without changing its core conclusions. Addenda are typically peer-reviewed to ensure they meet JNRSP’s quality standards and are overseen by the editor of the original article.

JNRSP remains committed to maintaining an accurate, ethical, and transparent scientific record for the benefit of readers, authors, and the broader research community.