Triage Discipline
Check scope fit, ethics completeness, and basic reporting quality before reviewer invitation to avoid unnecessary review load.
Editors Guidelines
Editorial Handling Guidelines for JPCS Editors
Editors play a central role in maintaining quality, fairness, and timeline discipline across patient care manuscripts. These guidelines summarize the minimum handling standards expected at triage, review assignment, decision drafting, conflict management, and post decision follow through.
45%APC Savings
Global -Research Community
24/7Open Access
Reviewer Selection
Match reviewers by topic and method expertise while avoiding conflicts and maintaining balanced technical perspectives.
Decision Quality
Draft clear decisions that connect reviewer evidence to editorial outcomes and provide practical revision instructions.
Timeline Control
Monitor overdue reviews, escalate where needed, and keep communication concise to maintain predictable workflow velocity.
Editors should recuse themselves from manuscripts where personal, institutional, or financial conflicts may affect impartiality.
Decision Writing Standard
Editors should produce decisions that are concise, evidence linked, and usable by authors without additional interpretation rounds.
Required Decision Elements
- One sentence summary of manuscript contribution.
- Top reasons supporting editorial outcome.
- Priority revision points if resubmission is invited.
- Any non negotiable ethics or reporting corrections.
Communication Tone
Editorial correspondence should remain professional and neutral. Even in rejection decisions, language should support scholarly development by clarifying principal weaknesses and practical improvement options.
Reviewer Management Expectations
Editors should actively manage reviewer mix and feedback quality to prevent one sided decisions and weak evidence interpretation.
Invite Balance
Use complementary expertise profiles where possible to cover methodology and domain relevance.
Quality Screen
Reject reports that are vague, unprofessional, or unsupported by manuscript evidence.
Escalate Early
Request additional review quickly when major technical disagreement cannot be resolved.
Document Rationale
Record key reasoning for the final decision in concise form for consistency and auditability.
Handling quality: short, precise, and evidence linked decisions reduce author confusion and support higher quality resubmissions.
Role Consistency Standard
Editorial and reviewer quality is measured by consistency, not isolated performance. Use structured communication, evidence linked comments, and realistic timelines on every assignment. Reliable behavior improves decision quality, strengthens professional credibility, and supports long term collaboration with the journal leadership team.
Quality habit: maintain concise, evidence linked communication and realistic turnaround commitments on every assignment. Consistency at this level is what builds lasting editorial trust.
Document each contribution briefly and consistently. Reliable records support recognition, accountability, and long term editorial program quality.
Editorial Support Is Available
For complex handling cases, contact the editorial office for procedural guidance before issuing decisions.
