Editor's Guidelines

This document outlines responsibilities, decision-making standards, confidentiality requirements, handling of conflicts of interest, management of misconduct cases, interactions with reviewers, and ethical expectations for all editors serving the journal.

Editors represent the journal’s commitment to scientific integrity, impartiality, and responsible knowledge dissemination.

1. Editorial Role and Responsibilities

Editors are expected to:

  • Ensure manuscripts fit the journal’s scope
  • Make decisions based solely on scholarly merit
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout peer review
  • Select qualified, unbiased reviewers
  • Provide constructive, respectful feedback
  • Handle cases of ethical concern following COPE protocols
  • Maintain records of decisions and correspondence

Editors must avoid personal, professional, or ideological bias of any kind.

2. Editorial Independence

APMH guarantees editorial independence. Editorial decisions must never be influenced by:

  • Authors’ institutional affiliations
  • Nationality or geographic region
  • Funding status
  • Political or ideological position
  • Potential APC revenue

Editors have full authority to accept, request revisions, or reject submissions based solely on scientific quality.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Before peer review, editors must evaluate:

  • Relevance to APMH’s aims and scope
  • Scientific quality and clarity
  • Ethics compliance (IRB approval, consent statements, animal ethics)
  • Plagiarism screening results
  • Completeness of submission files

Manuscripts failing these criteria may be desk-rejected with constructive guidance.

4. Selecting Reviewers

Editors must choose reviewers who:

  • Have expertise relevant to the manuscript
  • Are free from conflicts of interest
  • Can provide objective, timely evaluations
  • Adhere to confidentiality requirements

At least two independent reviewers are required for research articles.

Reviewer Invitation Best Practices

  • Verify reviewer identities, ORCID profiles, and publication history
  • Avoid overusing the same reviewers
  • Ensure diversity in reviewer selection
  • Avoid reviewers suggested solely by authors if conflicts may exist

5. Confidentiality Requirements

Editors must:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
  • Not share manuscripts outside the review process
  • Not use unpublished content for personal research
  • Protect reviewer identities in double-blind review

Breaches of confidentiality are serious ethical violations.

6. Managing Conflicts of Interest

Editors should recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where:

  • A personal or professional relationship exists with the authors
  • A financial conflict is present
  • There is potential bias affecting objectivity

In such cases, another editor must handle the submission.

7. Making Editorial Decisions

Editors must base their decisions on:

  • Reviewer reports
  • Scientific validity
  • Research significance
  • Methodological quality
  • Clarity and completeness of reporting

Editors should avoid:

  • Over-reliance on any single reviewer
  • Allowing harsh tone to influence the decision

Decision Types:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject with possibility of resubmission
  • Reject

Clear rationale must accompany every decision.

8. Handling Revisions

Editors must:

  • Evaluate whether authors adequately responded to reviewer comments
  • Check revised data, figures, or analyses
  • Consult reviewers for complex revisions
  • Ensure authors provide point-by-point responses

9. Addressing Ethical Misconduct

Editors must follow COPE workflows when misconduct is suspected:

  • Plagiarism or excessive text overlap
  • Fabricated or falsified data
  • Image manipulation
  • Improper authorship
  • Peer-review manipulation
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Actions may include:

  • Author clarification requests
  • Institutional notification
  • Retraction or expression of concern
  • Permanent submission bans
Editors must maintain neutrality and confidentiality throughout investigations.

10. Communication with Authors

Editors should:

  • Use respectful, supportive language
  • Clarify reviewer expectations
  • Avoid ambiguous or vague statements
  • Provide actionable guidance for revisions

Strong editorial communication enhances transparency and author satisfaction.

11. Working with Reviewers

Editors must:

  • Provide reviewers with complete instructions
  • Encourage professional, objective feedback
  • Discourage ad hominem or unprofessional comments
  • Recognize reviewer contributions

Reviewer Feedback Checks:

  • Does the review evaluate study design?
  • Is criticism supported with evidence?
  • Are suggestions constructive and relevant?

12. Maintaining Journal Quality

Editors are responsible for:

  • Upholding journal editorial standards
  • Ensuring diversity of research topics
  • Supporting early-career authors
  • Improving clarity and scientific rigor
  • Encouraging submissions aligned with global mental health priorities

13. Post-Publication Responsibilities

Editors must address:

  • Requests for corrections
  • Data or ethical concerns raised by readers
  • Retraction considerations
  • Clarifications and updates

Editors should work with the publisher to ensure timely responses.

14. Editorial Ethics Examples

Ethical Scenario

An editor discovers that a reviewer has a recent collaboration with the author. The editor immediately assigns a new reviewer to avoid conflict of interest.

Unethical Scenario

An editor rejects a manuscript due to personal disagreement with the study topic rather than scientific merit.

15. Expectations for Editorial Professionalism

Editors must:

  • Respond promptly to submissions
  • Remain impartial and patient
  • Respect cultural and academic diversity
  • Be open to scientific debate and innovation

The editor's tone and approach shape the journal’s scholarly identity.

Conclusion

Editors at APMH serve as guardians of scientific integrity and quality. Their actions directly influence the trustworthiness of the published record, the efficiency of the review process, and the scientific advancement of mental health research. By following these guidelines, editors help ensure fair, ethical, and rigorous evaluation for every manuscript submitted to the journal.