Actionability
Use concrete language so authors can implement updates efficiently.
Editors Operational Guidance
Editors Guidelines
Editors Guidelines
Journal of Palliative Care and Hospice
Apply structured editorial standards that strengthen fairness, clarity, and publication reliability in JPCH.
45%APC Savings
GlobalResearch Community
24/7Open Access
Editorial Practice
Guidelines for JPCH Editors
Editors should deliver fair, timely, and evidence-based decisions aligned with policy standards.
Editorial handling should prioritize validity, reproducibility, and practical scientific relevance.
Separating major scientific issues from minor edits improves revision quality and decision speed.
Operational Standards
What Editors Should Prioritize
Consistent editorial behavior strengthens quality and trust across submissions.
- Confirm scope fit and integrity readiness before external review invitation.
- Assign reviewers using topic and methods expertise while screening conflicts.
- Provide decision letters with specific and actionable guidance.
- Escalate ethics concerns with documented evidence and policy context.
- Resolve reviewer disagreements transparently with traceable rationale.
Communication Quality
How Editorial Decisions Should Be Communicated
Professional and precise communication improves process reliability.
Balance
Combine reviewer input with independent editorial assessment.
Documentation
Record key decision rationale for governance traceability.
Fairness
Apply standards consistently across article types and author groups.
Submission Planning
Execution Notes for Higher Acceptance Readiness
Use these practical notes to improve clarity, policy alignment, and review efficiency before final upload.
Editorial planning insight: Editors should prioritize decision-critical issues and avoid diffuse revision demands. This approach helps editors and reviewers evaluate the manuscript faster without sacrificing rigor.
Author workflow guidance: Specific recommendation language improves author response quality and speed. Teams that apply this step early usually reduce revision friction and protect publication timelines.
Quality acceleration note: Documented rationale supports governance transparency and calibration learning. The same practice also improves metadata quality and downstream indexing discoverability.
Submission strategy point: Targeted clarification requests are often more efficient than broad revision requests. It supports stronger decision transparency and more efficient peer-review communications.
Publication readiness reminder: Integrity concerns should be escalated with precise supporting evidence. This improves consistency between core manuscript sections and supporting files.
Operational recommendation: For editors guidelines planning, document reviewer-response changes against exact manuscript locations; state practical limitations and boundary conditions explicitly. This supports cleaner editorial decisions and faster acceptance readiness.
Reviewer-facing clarity note: For editors guidelines planning, confirm metadata fields and author identifiers before production lock; ensure data and code availability statements match policy language. This improves downstream indexing quality and retrieval relevance.
Support JPCH Editorial Excellence
Use these guidelines to maintain consistent and policy-aligned manuscript handling.
Editorial office: [email protected]
