Merit Driven Decisions
Acceptance outcomes are linked to methodological rigor and evidence relevance, not institutional reputation.
Editorial Policies
Editorial Policy Standards for JTT Publication Quality
JTT editorial policies are structured to ensure fairness, integrity, and methodological reliability across all thrombosis manuscript decisions. Policy enforcement applies from submission triage through post publication correction workflows. Decisions are based on scientific merit, reporting completeness, ethics compliance, and interpretation quality, independent of author status, institution, or funding source.
Rigorous - Review StandardsCanonical Metric
Fast - Publication ProcessCanonical Metric
Global - Research CommunityCanonical Metric
Open - Access PublicationCanonical Metric
Core Policy Principles
Editorial actions follow explicit quality, ethics, and communication standards to preserve trust in the scientific record.
Ethics Priority
Incomplete ethics or consent declarations can trigger pause, clarification, or rejection before review completion.
Conflict Management
Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts and recuse where impartiality may be compromised.
Transparent Decisions
Decision letters should be clear, evidence linked, and practically useful for revision or resubmission planning.
Peer Review Governance Framework
Reviewer assignment is based on domain and method fit. JTT monitors review quality for specificity, methodological engagement, and professional tone. Where reviews conflict materially, editors may request additional assessment to support fair decision synthesis. Review confidentiality is respected according to journal policy, and all participants are expected to maintain ethical communication standards.
Authors must respond to reviewer comments with precise and evidence based revisions. Generic or dismissive responses may result in additional revision rounds or negative editorial outcomes.
Research Integrity Controls
- Plagiarism and overlap screening before final acceptance.
- Escalation pathways for data credibility concerns.
- Image and figure integrity checks where needed.
- Mandatory disclosure of funding and competing interests.
- Correction, expression of concern, or retraction workflows.
Policy quality depends on consistent enforcement. Comparable evidence patterns should receive comparable editorial responses.
Pre Publication Corrective Actions
When integrity concerns are identified before publication, editors may require documentation, revised declarations, raw materials, or additional methodological clarification. Manuscripts can remain on hold until concerns are addressed. Where unresolved risk persists, rejection may be necessary to protect scientific reliability.
Editorial records should document major decision rationale to maintain governance transparency and consistency.
Post Publication Responsibilities
If credible concerns arise after publication, JTT evaluates evidence and may issue corrections, notices, or retractions as appropriate. Authors are expected to cooperate and provide requested documentation promptly. Transparent post publication action protects clinical readers who rely on thrombosis evidence for care decisions.
The journal encourages responsible reporting of potential issues through formal editorial contact channels.
Editorial Consistency Audits
Policy strength depends on consistent application across manuscripts. JTT uses periodic consistency checks to review decision language quality, conflict handling behavior, escalation patterns, and turnaround reliability. Audit findings support targeted updates to templates, guidance notes, and training practices.
Audit Focus Areas
Scope triage accuracy, reviewer quality, decision rationale depth, ethics escalation timing, and correction response quality are monitored to detect drift and improve operational alignment.
Continuous Improvement Actions
When variation is detected, editors receive focused support and updated reference language. The objective is to improve reliability without increasing unnecessary process burden.
Consistent policy application protects author trust and safeguards clinical evidence quality for end users.
Policy Governance Continuity
JTT maintains policy continuity through documented procedures, template updates, and handling reviews that reduce drift over time. This continuity is essential in clinical fields where publication decisions can influence practice perception and evidence adoption behavior.
Stable policy application is a core quality signal for authors and readers.
Documenting rationale for high impact decisions supports governance continuity and consistent handling standards.
Policy Reliability and Reader Trust
In thrombosis publishing, policy consistency affects confidence in evidence quality. Reliable enforcement, clear corrective pathways, and documented reasoning reduce uncertainty for authors and readers. Policy maturity is reflected not by statement volume, but by predictable and fair operational behavior across comparable cases.
Consistent policy application across similar cases is a core editorial accountability requirement.
Quality Continuity Note
Consistent process quality depends on clear ownership, timely communication, and concise documentation of key actions. Applying these habits at every stage improves predictability, reduces avoidable delay, and strengthens confidence in both editorial and operational outcomes.
Need Policy Clarification Before Submission?
Contact JTT for guidance on ethics, conflict disclosure, correction pathways, or review governance expectations.
