Manuscript Management

Academic Editors at ICRP are tasked with determining the suitability of manuscripts for publication within our journals. Whether you're new to the role, serving as a Guest Editor, or returning after a hiatus, this guide is designed to walk you through the editorial process step-by-step.

Manuscripts are managed through ICRP’s dedicated online system. Editors are notified via email when they are assigned to oversee a new manuscript.

Receiving a Manuscript

Our team assigns manuscripts based on the Editor's expertise and current workload to ensure a good fit with the manuscript's subject. While a profound understanding of the topic isn't mandatory—since peer reviewers will delve into the technical specifics—Editors should have a general familiarity with the subject matter. If the manuscript significantly deviates from their expertise, Editors are encouraged to decline the assignment.

Despite our meticulous selection process, conflicts of interest can arise. If an Editor finds themselves in a potential conflict, such as sharing an institution with an author or engaging in directly competing research, they are advised to recuse themselves from managing the manuscript. This proactive approach helps maintain the integrity and impartiality of the review process.

Conflict of Interest Awareness for Editorial Board Members

As a key figure in a journal's editorial process, it's crucial to remain vigilant about potential conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts.

First, evaluate your own potential conflicts. If you have a recent co-authorship or shared a professional affiliation with the manuscript's author(s), this could bias your judgment. ICRP strives to prevent assigning manuscripts where conflicts might arise, but we also rely on our Editors to identify and disclose any potential conflicts themselves. Should you recognize a conflict, it's imperative to recuse yourself from handling the manuscript.

As an expert in your field, the journal counts on your ability to spot both declared and undeclared conflicts from authors. Consider these aspects carefully in your manuscript recommendation.

When selecting reviewers, avoid those who:

• Are or have been affiliated with the same institution as the author(s) recently.
• Have co-authored works with the author(s) in the recent past.
• Are engaged in current collaborations with the author(s).

Special considerations apply to works authored by consortia.

If doubts arise regarding a potential reviewer's impartiality, it's advisable to choose an alternative. Should you suspect a reviewer's recommendation is self-serving, you may advise authors to disregard that particular feedback.

We recognize that niche fields may present a higher likelihood of interconnectedness among researchers. In instances where your expertise is invaluable despite a potential conflict, please notify your ICRP editorial liaison. This situation will then be evaluated by our Research Integrity team.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation

ICRP conducts a preliminary editorial screening on all submissions. Upon receipt, Editors should assess the manuscript's potential fit for publication, considering both its scientific scope and foundational quality.

Publications in an ICRP journal must be:

• Scientifically valid, adhering to established research standards.
• Technically precise in methodology and results.
• Representative of a significant advancement, replication, or noteworthy negative result, meriting publication.
• As reproducible as possible, sharing underlying data, methodologies, and supplementary materials when feasible.
• Ethically sound, conforming to best practices regarding animal and human studies, consent for publication, and a clear declaration of potential conflicts of interest.

Submissions not meeting these criteria should be promptly rejected. All others warrant formal peer review.

Selecting Peer Reviewers

Editors are encouraged to personally select at least two reviewers, though ICRP's system may also suggest potential candidates.

Considerations for reviewer selection include:

• Impartiality: Reviewers should not share an institution with any authors, nor have recent collaborations. Refrain from selecting any reviewer specifically excluded by the authors. Any detected conflict of interest will necessitate the assignment of a different reviewer.
• Qualifications: Reviewers must possess relevant field experience, as evidenced by their publication history.
• Comprehensive Expertise: Ensure that selected reviewers collectively cover all manuscript aspects.

Finding suitable reviewers may involve utilizing your academic network, exploring key terms in databases, or consulting the manuscript's references for similar research areas.

Decision-Making Process

Reviewers will recommend one of the following actions:

• Publish Unaltered
• Consider after Minor Changes
• Consider after Major Changes
• Reject

The decision process involves weighing these recommendations. A consensus for rejection among reviewers typically warrants manuscript rejection. However, if a single reviewer identifies a critical flaw, this could also justify rejection.

Manuscripts accepted for publication must be technically robust. Any concerns regarding experimental validity or logical inconsistencies should lead to rejection. The manuscript's significance should not be the sole rejection criterion unless it fails to offer original research or significant insight.

Confidentiality and Ethics

Manuscript confidentiality must be maintained until publication. Reviewer anonymity is preserved unless they choose to disclose their identity.

Any ethical concerns, including plagiarism or data manipulation, should be reported to ICRP's Research Integrity Team.

Editor Recognition

To acknowledge Editors' contributions and enhance transparency, the accepting Editor's name will be included in the published paper.