Editors Guidelines
Guidance for editors of Tissue Repair and Regeneration (JTRR).
Editorial decision standards
Editors guide peer review to uphold quality and fairness.
Clear decisions protect author trust and journal reputation.
- Assess scope fit, originality, and ethical compliance.
- Select qualified reviewers and manage conflicts.
- Provide clear decisions and rationale.
- Encourage improvements in clarity and reporting.
- Maintain confidentiality and impartiality.
Editorial guidance supports consistent decisions and fair review outcomes.
Clear processes reduce delays and improve author experience.
Structured decisions protect quality and transparency.
Editors balance scope fit, methodological rigor, and ethical integrity.
Structured decision letters improve clarity for authors.
Decision consistency
Apply scope and quality standards evenly. This improves decision consistency.
Reviewer quality
Select reviewers with relevant expertise. This supports fair review.
Timeline control
Monitor review cycles to prevent delays. This keeps timelines on track.
Ethical oversight
Act quickly on integrity concerns. This improves decision consistency.
Communication tone
Provide clear and professional decision letters. This supports fair review.
Conflict management
Document recusal decisions and avoid bias. This keeps timelines on track.
Revision focus
Highlight priority changes to support efficient revision. This improves decision consistency.
Scope screening
Reject out of scope submissions early and clearly. This supports fair review.
Reviewer diversity
Balance reviewer perspectives for fair evaluation. This keeps timelines on track.
Data review
Confirm data and ethics statements are complete. This improves decision consistency.
Desk review
Use consistent criteria for initial screening decisions. This supports fair review.
Appeals handling
Follow appeals procedures and document outcomes. This keeps timelines on track.
Reviewer reminders
Use reminders to keep reviews on schedule. This improves decision consistency.
Decision rationale
Summarize reasons for acceptance or rejection. This supports fair review.
- Confirm scope fit before sending for review.
- Avoid conflicts of interest and document recusals.
- Summarize key reviewer points in decisions.
- Encourage method transparency and data sharing.
- Maintain consistent timelines for revisions.
- Use decision templates to improve consistency.
- Check for ethical approvals and consent statements.
- Escalate integrity concerns to the editorial office.
- Provide clear revision deadlines.
- Confirm reviewer recommendations align with decision.
Quick editor guidance reminders help keep submissions smooth and expectations clear.
Clarity
Keep requirements concise and easy to follow for editor guidance. This reduces confusion and delays.
Completeness
Ensure the most important steps are visible in one place. This improves reader confidence.
Communication
Provide a clear path for questions and follow up. This supports efficient processing.
- Confirm contact details are correct.
- Check that required statements are included.
- Maintain consistent wording across the page.
A final set of editor guidance checkpoints helps keep the page complete and consistent.
Consistency check
Align terminology and labels across the page for editor guidance. This improves consistency and clarity.
Readability check
Confirm wording is clear to readers and administrators. This reduces editorial back and forth.
Policy alignment
Verify that editor guidance statements match journal policy. This supports a smoother review process.
Timeline readiness
Confirm timing expectations are realistic and visible. This improves consistency and clarity.
- Confirm terminology matches the page scope.
- Ensure key statements appear in the correct section.
- Verify timelines and contact details are accurate.
- Double check that supporting materials are referenced.
