Editors Guidelines

Consistent editorial practices for toxicology submissions.

• Assess scope alignment and safety relevance
• Select reviewers with toxicology expertise
• Evaluate methodological rigor and reporting
• Provide clear decision rationale
• Uphold ethics and conflict of interest policies

Editors evaluate scope fit, ethics, and reporting completeness before assigning reviewers.

• Confirm toxicology focus and clear objectives
• Check ethics approvals and trial registration
• Assess methods and endpoints
• Verify data availability statements

Select reviewers with relevant experimental, clinical, or regulatory expertise and avoid conflicts.

• Aim for at least two independent reviewers
• Balance mechanistic and clinical perspectives
• Document reviewer selection rationale

Provide decision letters that summarize key strengths, limitations, and required revisions.

Use this checklist to maintain consistency.

• Document key decision reasons
• Track reviewer response timelines
• Escalate ethics concerns promptly
• Encourage data transparency
• Reference reporting guidelines
• Provide clear revision requests

For questions about scope, data reporting, or compliance, contact the editorial team for guidance before submission.

Use this checklist to maintain consistency.

• Document key decision reasons
• Track reviewer response timelines
• Escalate ethics concerns promptly
• Encourage data transparency
• Reference reporting guidelines
• Provide clear revision requests
• Ensure scope fit before review
• Confirm conflict of interest checks

Clear decisions help authors respond effectively.

• Separate major and minor revisions
• Summarize main strengths and weaknesses
• Provide timeline expectations
• Reference reviewer comments when needed
• Confirm acceptance criteria

Effective reviewer management improves timelines.

• Invite reviewers with relevant expertise
• Monitor response timelines
• Send reminders for late reviews
• Balance reviewer workload
• Document reviewer conflicts
• Thank reviewers after completion

Editors are encouraged to provide decision letters that clearly summarize key issues, required revisions, and expected timelines. Clear communication supports faster revisions and improves author satisfaction.

When conflicts or ethical concerns arise, editors should consult the editorial office promptly. Documenting decisions and rationales supports transparency and consistency across the journal.

Use this checklist to support consistent decisions.

• Reference scope in decision letters
• Summarize key reviewer concerns
• Provide clear revision requirements
• Document ethics concerns
• Confirm data transparency
• Set realistic revision deadlines

Use these notes to finalize decisions and communications.

• Confirm scope fit in decision letters
• Document ethics checks clearly
• Provide clear revision instructions
• Set realistic revision deadlines
• Summarize key reviewer feedback
• Confirm data transparency expectations
• Communicate respectfully with authors
• Record decision rationale for audit

Consistency supports fair decisions.

• Use standard templates for decisions
• Document scope alignment clearly