Instruction for Editors

Assessing a New Manuscript

Here are some key aspects to consider when evaluating a new submission.

Do you have any competing interests that would prevent you from handling the manuscript?

If you have a competing interest related to the manuscript or any of the authors, please declare this to the editorial office upon the first assignment, and the manuscript will be reassigned. More information on identifying competing interests can be found in our editorial policies.

Does the manuscript appear sufficiently robust to proceed to peer review?

If you do not wish to proceed, please provide comments to the authors explaining your decision to reject the manuscript without peer review. If you believe the manuscript could be revised to address your concerns, you may request that the authors make revisions before it is sent for peer review.

Is the submission within the scope of your journal?

The full scope of the journal can be found on your journal’s “About” page. If a manuscript is determined to be out of scope but still scientifically valid, it will usually be sent to the transfer desk upon rejection. Our editorial staff will then contact the author to identify a more suitable journal. Occasionally, you may select a specific alternative journal for transfer.

Does the manuscript fulfill the journal’s interest criteria?

Journals have varying criteria for interest. Some focus on articles that present significant advancements or research with a broad impact.

Is the article type appropriate for the content?

You can find the available article types for your journal in its submission guidelines. Occasionally, a submission may not align with one of the designated article types, but it could still be suitable for peer review. In such cases, please inform us, and we will provide further guidance.

Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s editorial policies?

All manuscripts must comply with Gleam Publishing’s editorial policies. If you have any concerns regarding a manuscript, please discuss them with your journal contact or inform the editorial office so that we can investigate further. The following points should be particularly considered before submitting a manuscript for peer review:

Do you perceive any ethical issues with the manuscript?
Does the manuscript include consent if it contains data related to individual patients?
Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for data collection and reporting?
If the manuscript reports the results of a clinical trial, does it include a trial registration number?
Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism or duplicate publication?

Does the quality of the English language affect your ability to evaluate the scientific content?

If you receive a new manuscript that requires English copyediting before you can adequately assess its scientific content, you may request a pre-review revision from the authors.

Finding Peer Reviewers

Research articles and other manuscripts requiring external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. The peer-review requirements for other article types follow the journal’s published policies. See Article Types and Peer Review and the Peer-Review Policies. Some manuscripts may require additional independent reviewers with relevant methodological or subject expertise.

Criteria for a Suitable Reviewer

Reviewers should:

have appropriate expertise in the subject matter or methodology;
have a relevant and current scholarly record;
be independent of the authors and free from competing interests; and
be able to provide a timely, objective, and constructive review.

Reviewers should not have recent close collaborations, institutional relationships, financial interests, or other relationships with the authors that could reasonably be perceived as affecting the impartiality of the review.

Authors may request the exclusion of specific reviewers, but the final decision regarding reviewer selection rests with the editor.

Reviewers must not involve trainees, colleagues, or other individuals in the review without prior permission from the editor. Any approved co-reviewer must be identified to the journal and must comply with the same confidentiality and competing-interest requirements.

Finding Potential Reviewers

To supplement your knowledge of researchers in the field, we recommend exploring additional avenues:

Assess the manuscript’s reference list to identify reviewers with specialized knowledge of the topic and methodology
Approach invited speakers at meetings/conferences
Check suggestions made by candidates who have declined to review within the journal’s manuscript management system.
Consider authors from articles that have already been published in your journal on similar topics
Utilize online tools

To conduct a search using keywords, we recommend the following approaches:

PubMed, Google Scholar, PubReMiner, Anne O’Tate, Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions

To search by title and abstract, we recommend the following methods:

Jane

Author-suggested reviewers

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered at the editor’s discretion. Their identity, expertise, institutional affiliation, and potential competing interests should be independently verified. Editors should not rely exclusively on author-suggested reviewers.

Personal contacts

Finding new reviewers offers distinct advantages compared to relying solely on your personal contacts, especially if you still need help finding reviewers after utilizing the above suggestions. By identifying reviewers with the appropriate expertise, you can expand your journal’s audience, and new reviewers may be more inclined to consider your journal for future submissions.

Handling transferred reports

The Editorial Office checks the transfer materials and documents verification of report provenance and reviewer identity. The handling editor assesses reviewer independence, the adequacy and relevance of the reports, the authors' responses, and the need for further review. Before acceptance, the handling editor must record which reports satisfy the journal's review requirements and how substantive concerns have been resolved. Any unresolved authenticity or conflict-of-interest concern must be addressed under the Portability of Peer Review and Misconduct policies.

Making an Editorial Decision

Editors make decisions based on the manuscript, reviewer reports where external review is required, authors’ responses, and the journal’s policies and standards. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor or Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final editorial decision.

For additional guidance on editorial decisions, please contact the editorial office at editor@gleampub.com.

When Should I Reject a Manuscript?

When rejecting a manuscript, whether before or after peer review, it is essential to provide authors with clear reasons for the rejection, along with constructive feedback that can help them improve their work in the future.

If concerns regarding the validity of the study cannot be addressed within the current manuscript or if the proposed revisions would result in an entirely new study, the manuscript should be rejected with an invitation to resubmit only when a new submission could adequately address those concerns. If the concerns cannot be resolved, reject without an invitation to resubmit.
If the manuscript requires extensive work beyond a reasonable revision process, rejection with an invitation to resubmit may be appropriate. Clearly explain the work required and that a new submission will be assessed afresh; an invitation to resubmit does not guarantee acceptance.
Is another journal more appropriate?

If a manuscript is deemed out of scope for a journal, or if the results do not meet the criteria of a selective journal but are nonetheless sound, we offer a transfer service to another journal within Gleam Publishing. However, you may also choose to reject a manuscript without transfer for any reason. You always have the option to reject without transfer.

When Should I Request Revisions?

You should request a revision if the manuscript is likely to be acceptable for publication after some changes and modifications. The authors will receive the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and will be asked to revise the manuscript accordingly.

If the scale of revisions means that the authors would need a long period and the manuscript would require extensive reworking, it may be suitable to reject the manuscript while inviting the authors to resubmit. The original file will be closed, allowing the authors to submit a new manuscript. This approach encourages more extensive revisions and prevents the prolonged or indefinite retention of files should the authors be unable to complete the necessary changes.

Assessing Reviewer Requests for Additional Work

When contacting authors, it is advisable to include a brief paragraph highlighting specific areas you would like them to focus on when revising their manuscript.

Editors should distinguish additional work necessary to support the manuscript’s claims from work that would merely extend the study. When reviewers request further experiments, analyses, or data, identify the specific issues that must be resolved for the findings to be valid and adequately supported. Where appropriate, authors may address a concern by narrowing their conclusions and explaining limitations. Essential methodological or ethical concerns must be resolved before acceptance.

Who Reviews Author Revisions?

If you recommend revisions to a manuscript, you will be notified once the revised manuscript is resubmitted. At that stage, you should decide whether the manuscript can be accepted without a re-review or if you need further advice from the original reviewers.
If you feel that a re-review is required, requesting feedback from the original reviewers on any points that require clarification can save time.

How Many Revisions Should Be Allowed?

Editors should avoid unnecessary repeated rounds of revision. Additional revision rounds should be requested only when specific, addressable issues remain that are necessary for the manuscript to become acceptable.

If further revisions would not render the manuscript acceptable, it should be rejected without an invitation to resubmit.

What If Decision-Making Could Be More Straightforward?

When reviewers disagree in their assessment of work, you may be able to reach a decision without seeking further advice by considering their areas of expertise. We encourage you to carefully read the concerns raised by each reviewer and recognize that one reviewer may highlight an issue that another has overlooked due to their differing expertise in particular subject matters.

It is expected that you will be able to make a straightforward decision, even when reviewers present opposing views, by considering your knowledge of the subject area, your interpretation of the manuscript, and the reviewers’ expertise. However, if you remain uncertain about how to proceed, it may be advisable to seek additional guidance from an independent third reviewer or to request that another editorial team or the editorial board adjudicate the conflicting reports.

If the authors have already made revisions in response to the initial reviews, it is preferable to seek further advice on specific points of disagreement rather than requesting a whole new report from an independent third reviewer.

What If There Are Ethical Concerns?

If you have any concerns regarding the ethical framework of the research—such as a lack of participant consent, absence of ethical approval for the study, or issues where the value of the knowledge gained does not justify the severity of the experiments conducted—or possible research or author misconduct, please address these issues with your journal contact as soon as possible and before making your editorial decision. For further information, please consult our editorial policies.

If you need any additional information or wish to discuss any concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

What Should You Do If There Are Language Concerns?

Editors may request language revision when the quality of the English prevents reliable assessment of the scientific content.

Authors may use any language-editing service of their choice. Use of such services has no influence on editorial decisions.

Back to Home