Editor Resources

Tools and guidance to support editorial excellence.

• Reviewer selection guidelines and expertise matching
• Decision templates and communication tools
• Ethics escalation workflows
• Reporting standard checklists for depression studies
• Production and copyediting contacts

• Editorial office support via [email protected]
• Updates on policy changes and best practices
• Training resources for new editors
• Access to reviewer performance tracking

Editors use consistent criteria to maintain rigor and fairness.

• Confirm scope alignment before review assignment
• Select reviewers with relevant clinical expertise
• Check for conflicts of interest early
• Ensure ethical approvals are documented
• Provide clear decision rationale for authors
• Track reviewer timelines and follow up as needed
• Recommend revisions that improve clarity and rigor
• Escalate ethical concerns to the editorial office
• Promote consistent reporting standards
• Encourage data transparency and reproducibility
• Support constructive peer review culture
• Document key decisions for audit trails

Consistent engagement supports timely decisions.

• Encourage consistent use of reporting checklists
• Promote fair and unbiased peer review
• Document key decisions for accountability
• Provide guidance on revision expectations
• Support authors with clear feedback
• Ensure reviewer diversity and balance
• Monitor reviewer responsiveness
• Address ethical concerns promptly
• Maintain confidentiality throughout review
• Coordinate with production teams when needed

Complete, well structured submissions move through review more efficiently and reduce follow up questions.

Structured decisions improve consistency and fairness.

• Document key strengths and weaknesses
• Clarify revision requirements for authors
• Recommend statistical review when needed
• Ensure conflicts are addressed early
• Encourage adherence to reporting standards
• Maintain clear communication timelines
• Track reviewer performance and responsiveness
• Use checklists to standardize decisions
• Support constructive reviewer feedback
• Escalate ethical concerns promptly

These small checks help keep manuscripts and communications consistent.

• Keep terminology consistent across sections
• Confirm that tables match reported results
• Use clear headings that guide reviewers
• Provide concise summaries of key findings
• Check that ethics statements are visible
• Align figures with outcome descriptions
• Include clinical implications in discussion
• Verify that all links are current

Quality checks reduce revision cycles and accelerate review.

• Use plain language for complex findings
• Avoid unnecessary jargon or acronyms
• Ensure methods are described in sequence
• Clarify participant flow and attrition
• Report baseline characteristics clearly
• State limitations and generalizability
• Include acknowledgments where needed
• Double check citation formatting

Clear scope alignment improves editorial screening outcomes.

• Confirm scope alignment before submission
• Summarize key takeaways for clinicians
• Highlight novelty in the cover letter
• Provide complete author contact details
• Indicate any supplemental material
• Note any clinical trial registrations
• Share funding statements explicitly
• Check spelling of assessment instruments