This document outlines the core responsibilities and ethical guidelines for all members of the JPIW Editorial Team, ensuring consistency, integrity, and adherence to COPE guidelines.
1. Ethical Oversight and Initial Screening
The Editor’s primary responsibility is to act as the guardian of the journal’s ethical and scholarly standards.
A. Dual Editorial Screening (Mandatory)
Before any manuscript enters external peer review, it must undergo a rigorous dual internal assessment:
- Scope Alignment: The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) or assigned Associate Editor (AE) determines if the manuscript fits JPIW’s mission (judgment, intelligence, and wise action).
- Ethical & Quality Check: A second designated editor conducts initial checks, including:
- Originality: Verification using screening software (e.g., Crossref Similarity Check).
- AI Disclosure: Ensuring compliance with the AI Use Policy.
- Anonymity: Confirming the identity of the author has been removed for double-blind review.
B. Misconduct and COPE
- Handling Misconduct: All suspected cases of misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, redundant publication) must be handled strictly according to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts and the JPIW Ethical Standards Policy.
- Recusal: Editors must recuse themselves immediately from considering any manuscript where a conflict of interest (COI) exists (e.g., former student, institutional colleague, close collaborator). The submission must be handled by an independent section editor.
C. Confidentiality and Privileged Information
- Confidentiality: Editors must treat all manuscript details, reviewer identities, and communication logs as strictly confidential. Information about a submitted paper must not be disclosed to anyone outside the established review process (authors, assigned reviewers, publisher).
- Non-Misuse of Work: Editors must not use, copy, or exploit any unpublished information, data, or arguments disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research, personal benefit, or the benefit of third parties without the author’s explicit written permission.
2. Managing the Peer Review Process
A. Research Articles (Double-Blind)
- Review Mandate: Mandatory Double-Blind Peer Review by a minimum of two external experts.
- Reviewer Selection: Select reviewers based on subject matter expertise and methodological specialization.
- Criteria Focus: Ensure reviewers are explicitly guided to evaluate both Scholarly Rigor (methodology, evidence) and Practical Utility/Wisdom (real-world applicability and ethical grounding).
- Timeliness: Actively monitor review progress to ensure adherence to the accelerated 6–8 week decision timeline promised to authors.
B. Practitioner Essays / Case Studies (Editorial Review)
- Review Mandate: Internal Editorial Review Only (non-peer-reviewed).
- Editor’s Focus: Assess for clarity, tone, accessibility to a diverse audience, and clear differentiation between factual case details and the author’s analysis/opinion.
3. Decision Transparency
All editorial decisions must be communicated with clarity, respect, and actionable insight.
- Constructive Feedback: Provide comprehensive, consolidated feedback based on the reviewer reports.
- Specific Reasons: Ensure that rejections are clearly tied to the core JPIW criteria—either a lack of rigor (for research articles) or a mismatch in scope/utility (for all submissions).
- Final Archival Record: Maintain a complete, documented record of the review process, including all reviewer comments, for every manuscript.
The world does not need more information. It needs more wisdom in action.