Triage Control
Check scope fit, ethics language, and reporting baseline before reviewer invitation.
Editors Guidelines
Handling Guidelines for JTT Editors
Editors are responsible for fair triage, reviewer quality control, and evidence linked decisions. These guidelines summarize handling expectations that protect consistency and timeline discipline.
Rigorous - Review StandardsCanonical Metric
Fast - Publication ProcessCanonical Metric
Global - Research CommunityCanonical Metric
Open - Access PublicationCanonical Metric
Reviewer Matching
Assign reviewers by domain and method fit while monitoring conflict risk.
Decision Clarity
Draft concise decisions linked directly to reviewer evidence and policy standards.
Timeline Discipline
Escalate overdue reviews and keep communication practical to maintain workflow pace.
Decision Writing Standard
Each decision should include contribution summary, key strengths, top concerns, and prioritized revision tasks where applicable. Clear structure reduces ambiguity and supports stronger author response quality in subsequent rounds.
Editors should avoid vague statements and ensure rationale is sufficient for internal consistency review.
Reviewer Quality Management
- Reject non specific or unprofessional reports.
- Request additional review when disagreement is unresolved.
- Document major reasoning behind final decisions.
- Recuse promptly when conflicts exist.
Consistent handling quality improves trust and overall publication reliability.
Editorial Quality Continuity
Editorial reliability is built through practical consistency: transparent conflict disclosure, evidence linked decision notes, and predictable communication with authors and reviewers. Strong editors do not only make sound decisions; they also document reasoning clearly, escalate integrity concerns early, and keep handling timelines realistic. This operating discipline reduces avoidable revision cycles, improves author confidence in the process, and supports long term governance credibility across thrombosis publishing workflows.
Decision Discipline
Use a structured method for every manuscript: scope fit, methodological strength, risk signals, and recommendation rationale. Consistent structure improves fairness and helps the editorial office maintain dependable quality control.
Communication Standard
Concise, specific, and respectful editorial communication accelerates revision quality and protects review momentum. When delays or conflicts appear, early escalation is the preferred professional standard.
Sustained editorial quality comes from repeatable process discipline, not ad hoc decision making.
Practical Handling Benchmarks
Editorial excellence is operational, not theoretical. JTT recommends a repeatable benchmark set for every assignment: first response acknowledgement within one business cycle, clear reviewer instruction quality, documented rationale for major decisions, and timely escalation when reviewer delay or ethics uncertainty appears. These benchmarks create measurable consistency, protect author confidence, and reduce downstream rework. Teams that apply a benchmark model produce steadier decision quality and stronger publication governance outcomes over time.
A lightweight weekly self audit against these benchmarks helps maintain predictable editorial performance.
Need Handling Support?
Contact the editorial office for complex decision cases or policy clarification before final communication.
