Last updated: August 19, 2024
Guidelines for manuscript decision
0 Introduction
The manuscript decision process of the Baishideng Publishing Group (Baishideng) 46 English-language journals includes three major steps: First review, second review, and final review. First review refers to the initial review and assessment of the scientificity, innovativity, and potential academic misconduct of the manuscript; this is performed by the Journal’s Editor-in Chief/Associate Editor or the Science Editor of the publisher. If the manuscript meets the basic requirements for progressing to external review, the AI Editor or Science Editor will initiate the invitation of external peer reviewers to review the manuscript. After the external peer review is completed, the Science Editor and the Executive Editor-in-Chief of the publisher will make the first decision of acceptance, recommendation of submitting to another journal, or rejection. Second review refers to the review of the revised manuscript and all related documents submitted by the authors; this is performed by the Science Editor of the publisher and the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief to evaluate the scientific quality, ethical documentation, and language quality of the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions raised in the peer-review report, and culminates in the second decision of acceptance or rejection based on the re-review reports of some or all of the peer reviewers, according to availability and/or contribution to the first review. Final review refers to the decision of final acceptance, return for additional revision, or rejection based on the comments raised in the first review and second review, as recorded in the accompanying peer-review reports. The academic integrity, persons responsible for manuscript decision, and the decision process of the first review, second review, and final review by the publisher are as follows:
1 Academic integrity
The scope of academic misconduct that the publisher forbids of its Science Editors (including the Science Editor Development Department Director, and the Executive Editor-in-Chief), defining each item as a direct violation of academic integrity, includes: (1) Presenting editorial opinions contrary to academic and ethical standards; (2) Violation of conflict-of-interest provisions; (3) Breach of confidentiality requirements; (4) Misappropriation of manuscript content; (5) Interfering with manuscript review; (6) Seeking illegitimate benefits; and (7) Other academic misconducts including failure to implement editorial standards when reviewing relevant ethical documents provided by authors, disregard for authors' haphazard inclusion of self-citations, and deliberately distorting authors' original intent to revise manuscripts. The overall process of first review, second review, and final review of the manuscript is indispensable, and the work of any two steps in the process of deciding the same manuscript cannot be completed by the same Science Editor, in order to prevent intentional and protect against unintentional bias.
2 Persons responsible for manuscript decision
The first decision shall be made by the Science Editor and the Science Editor Development Department Director of the publisher, the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, and the Executive Editor-in-Chief of the publisher. The second decision shall be made by the Science Editor and the Science Editor Development Department Director of the publisher, the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, and the Language Editor. The third/final decision shall be made by the Executive Editor-in-Chief of the publisher.
3 Key points for first decision making
After the external peer reviewers invited by the AI Editor or Science Editor of the publisher complete their peer review, the manuscript is assigned to the Science Editor by the Science Editor Development Department Director of the publisher to make the first decision. Generally, the first decision of acceptance, recommendation of submitting to another journal, or rejection is made based on the first-review peer review reports from 3 peer reviewers. In special cases, the first decision can be made based on the peer-review report(s) from 1-3 peer reviewers. The key points for the first decision on the manuscript by the Science Editor of the publisher include: (1) Does the manuscript fall within the scope of the journal? (2) Is the manuscript scientific, innovative, and practical? (3) Does the manuscript contain potential academic misconduct? (4) Is the type of the manuscript categorized by the author(s) consistent with the content of the manuscript? (5) Is the manuscript invited or freely submitted? (6) Is the invitation number of the manuscript (only for invited manuscripts) added to the manuscript information? (7) Does the ethics of the manuscript meet the publication requirements? (8) In the findings of the assessments of scientific quality, are the following key points included: (A) Verification of the academic rating of the manuscript by the peer reviewers; (B) Summarization of the comments of the peer reviewers and outlines of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript; (C) Description of the quantity and quality of the figure(s) and table(s) in the manuscript; and (D) Statement of whether the references are cited adequately and reasonably; (9) Does the peer reviewers' language quality rating reach grade B or above? (10) In the findings of assessments of the quality of manuscript writing are the following key points included: (A) Is the structure of the manuscript organized logically? (B) Are the figure(s) and table(s) complete? (C) Are the results discussed adequately? (D) Are the references accurate? Do the references need updating? (11) In the findings of assessments of the manuscript’s references, are the following key points included: (A) Are the references properly formatted and cited in the text? (B) Are there more than 100 references if the article is a Review? Are there under 100 references if the article is a Minireview or Opinion Review? Are there more than 30 references if the article is a Case Report or Literature Review? (12) Is the manuscript supported by fund(s) from international or national organizations?
Based upon the complete 12 items considered above, the Science Editor writes specific comments and suggestions to support their reasoned recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript or to submit to another journal. Finally, the first decision of acceptance, recommendation to the authors of submission to another journal, or rejection is made by the Executive Editor-in-Chief based on the peer-review reports and the comments and suggestions of the Science Editor.
4 Key points for second decision making
Manuscripts that have been accepted in the first review and then revised by the author(s) will undergo second review for second decision making. The Science Editor Development Department Director of the publisher assigns the manuscript revised by the author(s) to the Science Editor for editing and processing. The key points for the Science Editor to address in this step of processing the revised manuscript include: (1) Is the type of the manuscript categorized by the author(s) consistent with the content of the manuscript? (2) Is the manuscript invited or freely submitted? (3) Is the invitation number of the manuscript (only for invited manuscripts) added to the manuscript information? (4) Did the author(s) revise the manuscript according to the requirements of the Science Editor according to the work list? (5) Do the authors provide the ethical documents corresponding to the journal column? (6) Do the non-native English-speaking authors provide the language certificate? (7) Are all documents related to the manuscript provided and correctly uploaded to the F6Publishing system according to the manuscript type? (8) Did the authors revise the manuscript in accordance with the comments and suggestions raised in the peer-review report(s)? (9) Is the iThenticate check result qualified? (10) Is the manuscript supported by fund(s) from international or national organizations? (11) Is the corresponding author a member of an international or national society? (12) Is the first author under 45 years-old? (13) Is the corresponding author who filled in the ID number a member of the editorial boards of Baishideng series journals? (14) Is the corresponding author who filled in the ID number a peer reviewer of Baishideng series journals?
Based upon the complete 14 items considered above, the Science Editor writes the second decision summary and provides a reasoned recommendation for the decision of acceptance or rejection to the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief.
5 Key points for final decision making
After the second decision on the manuscript is made, the Science Editor Development Department Director of the publisher assigns the manuscript to the Executive Editor-in-Chief of the publisher, who will make the final decision of acceptance or rejection based on the collective comments and suggestions of the Science Editor and the decision of the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief. The key points for the final decision made by the Executive Editor-in-Chief of the publisher include: (1) Manuscript type: Is the type of manuscript categorized by the author(s) consistent with the content of the manuscript? (2) Manuscript source: Is the manuscript invited or freely submitted? (3) Publication ethics: Are ethics, informed consent, copyright transfer agreement, and other documents appropriate and complete? Is the iThenticate check result qualified? (4) Scientific quality: Do the academic quality, figure and table quality, language quality, and editing quality of the final manuscript meet the publication standards? (5) Final decision: The manuscript is finally accepted for publication, returned for further revision, or rejected.