Editors & Reviewers
Editors and Reviewers Guide
Editor’s Guide
The editorial board of Openventio is made up of expert researchers, clinicians, and active academicians who ensure the smooth operation and publication of quality articles. The board is made up of an Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Editors who are in charge of overseeing the proper execution of the journal guidelines and contributing to the growth and expansion of a diverse scientific community as a whole. Prior to participating, all editors must declare a no competing/conflict of interest statement with the journal. Editors' decisions on whether to accept or reject an article must be final unless there is a need for further reconsideration.
Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
Prior to publication, all articles must be approved by the Editor-in-Chief, and any decision made is final. The EIC will serve as the journal's public face, and it is expected that he or she will raise the journal's profile both within and outside the community.
• In charge of forming the editorial board and supervising the journal editors' activities.
• Making all other editorial policies and standards clear.
• Creating a process for revising editorial decisions.
• Ensuring that the published content adheres to the journal's editorial guidelines and policies, as stated in the journal's aim and scope.
• Permission to reject articles that appear to be plagiarised or ghostwritten.
• Respond to complaints promptly and ensure that unresolved issues are resolved.
• Submit at least one research/review article and one editorial per year, based on his/her area of expertise.
• Assist in journal indexing.
• Produce at least one Special Edition per year and promote it among colleagues and students to encourage active participation.
Associate Editors
Prior to the EIC's final decision, associate editors ensure that the technical quality and soundness of the content is maintained. As a result, they validate and verify that an article is ready for publication.
Responsibilities
• Observing strict deadlines by avoiding the possibility of delaying the manuscript process in anticipation of comments from editors/reviewers.
• Expected to be available for guidance and support in critical situations, as well as to contribute to journal activities as needed.
• Responsible for ensuring the clarity and accuracy of content prior to publication.
• Creating mechanisms to ensure that accepted manuscripts are published on time.
• Being fair, courteous, objective, honest, and transparent to all authors.
• Should respond quickly to author, editor, or reviewer complaints or concerns.
• Work with the EIC to find, select, and develop outstanding articles for the journal.
• Editorial plan review - final draft of articles
• Disseminate the most recent news and updates on emerging trends in the scientific community and make them available for author feedback.
• Submit at least one research/review article and one editorial per year, based on his/her area of expertise.
Editors
Editors are typically assigned articles after the initial Pre-Quality Editorial Assessment, which includes a plagiarism check and language editing; however, editors are held accountable for ensuring that the article meets the journal's performance and quality standards.
Responsibility
• Making reasonable editorial decisions and communicating them in a clear and constructive manner.
• Ensure that the article's content is factually correct and conveys its meaning clearly.
• Checking spellings, grammar, figures, tables, and so on to ensure that they are relevant to the topic of the article.
• It may be necessary to change, modify, paraphrase, or condense the content to improve its quality.
• It is expected that you will make or suggest changes to the content in question.
• Submit at least one research/review article and one editorial per year, based on his/her area of expertise.
Reviewer’s Guide
Peer review is the standard method for assessing the quality of a research paper. The most influential factors in determining the journals' reputation and quality standard are the quality of the peer-review process and critical evaluation undertaken by board members. To ensure the quality and credibility of the journals, Openventio strictly adheres to a double-blind peer-review process.
Responsibilities
• A potential reviewer should have academic credentials (with a doctorate or an equivalent academic degree).
• Reviewers must provide accurate personal and professional information, as well as a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable contact information. Impersonating another expert during the review process will be considered a serious legal violation.
• The reviewer should agree to review a manuscript only if he or she has the necessary subject expertise.
• The comments/feedback should be concise and constructive, assisting in identifying the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses.
• If there are any prior commitments, health concerns, time constraints, or other related issues, the assigned reviewers may decline to review a manuscript upon assignment.
• Invited reviewers should be considerate enough to respond within 24 hours with their decision or availability to review.
• If the reviewer is currently employed by the same institution as any of the authors or has previously worked closely with the author, he or she should decline to review the corresponding manuscript.
• Reviewers should disclose any competing or conflicting interests (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious) prior to the review process to avoid complications and potential bias, and should refrain from reviewing such manuscripts.
• After the first round of reviewers' evaluations, he/she may decide whether or not to re-review the revised article.
• If an unavoidable situation or delay in the review process occurs, the journal must be notified.
• If reviewers are unable to continue reviewing an assigned manuscript after the agreement, they are expected to recommend alternate reviewers to take on the assignment.
• During the review process, the reviewer may contact the journal if any information is missing, unclear, or incomplete.
• Any suspicions about the identity of the author(s) should be reported immediately.
• Authors should not be contacted directly by reviewers without the permission of the journal.
• Reviewers should give authors a fair chance to respond to criticisms.
• Reviewers should refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process to benefit oneself or others.
• Involving a third party in the review process without first obtaining permission from the journal is considered serious misconduct.
• In the review assessment form, you must include both general and specific comments.
• Reviewers must refrain from making disparaging or personal remarks in their feedback.
• In addition to their other comments on the manuscript, reviewers are expected to recommend acceptance/revision/rejection as a verdict.
• The reviewers' recommendations are not final and may be modified if the journal receives an adequate set of comments during the editorial review or from the EIC.
• Reviewers should refrain from advising authors to cite their work in order to boost citation counts or increase the visibility of their own/colleagues' work.
• If the reviewer is the handling editor and is asked to review the same manuscript (in the event that the reviewer withdraws from the peer review in the middle of the process or is unable to submit feedback), he/she must handle the manuscript transparently, rather than acting as an anonymous additional reviewer.
• Submit at least one research/review article and one editorial per year based on his/her area of expertise.
• Every year, during the month of December, all reviewers who participated in the peer review process during the corresponding academic year will be honored with an electronic certificate of appreciation.
Please click on the Open Communities tab to register as a reviewer for one of our journals.
*Note: All reviewers' identities will be kept confidential in accordance with our double-blind peer review policy and will not be disclosed under any circumstances. Reviewers who are rude or write late and poor-quality reviews will be terminated immediately.
