Last updated: August 16, 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 by the Journal’s Editor-in Chief/Associate Editor or the science editor of the publisher. If the manuscript meets the basic requirements for external review, the AI editor or science editor will invite 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 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 to make the second decision of acceptance or rejection based on the re-review reports of some peer reviewers. Final review is the decision of final acceptance, return for revision, or rejection based on the comments raised in the initial review, peer-review report, and second review. 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 described as follows:
1 Academic integrity
The scope of academic misconduct of science editors of the publisher (including the Director of the Editorial Office Academic Editor Development, Director of the Editorial Office Science Editor Development, and the Executive Editor-in-Chief) in 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 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 finalizing the same manuscript cannot be completed by the same person.
2 Persons responsible for manuscript decision
The first decision shall be made by the science editor and Director of the Editorial Office Science Editor Development of the publisher, Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, and Executive Editor-in-Chief of the publisher. The second decision shall be made by the science editor and Director of the Editorial Office Science Editor Development of the publisher, Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, and language editor. The third 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 the peer review, the manuscript is assigned to the science editor by the Editorial Office Science Editor Development 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 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) Scientific quality: The key points of scientific quality assessment of manuscripts in the first review include: (A) Verifying the academic rating of the manuscript by the peer reviewers; (B) Summarizing the comments of the peer reviewers and outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript; (C) Describing the quantity and quality of the figure(s) and table(s) in the manuscript; (D) Checking whether the references are cited adequately and reasonably; (9) Does the peer reviewers' language quality rating reach grade B or above? (10) Quality of manuscript writing: The key points for assessment of the quality of manuscript writing include: (A) Is the structure of the manuscript organized logically? (B) Are the figure(s) and table(s) complete? (C) Are the results adequately discussed? (D) Are the references accurate? Do the references need to update? Are the references properly formatted and cited in the text? (11) Funding: Is the manuscript supported by fund(s) from international or national organizations? (12) Number of references: Are there more than 100 references in Reviews? Is the number of references in Minireviews and Opinion Reviews under 100? Are there more than 30 references in Case Reports and Literature Reviews? and (13) Summary: The science editor writes specific comments and suggestions to accept or reject the manuscript or recommend submitting to another journal. Finally, the first decision of acceptance, recommendation of submitting 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 Director of the Editorial Office Science Editor Development of the publisher assigns the revised manuscript by the author(s) to the science editor for editing and processing. The key points for the science editor to process 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? (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 is a peer reviewer of Baishideng series journals? and (15) Summary: The science editor writes the second decision summary according to the above key points for editing and processing manuscripts, and suggests 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 was made, the Director of the Editorial Office Science Editor Development 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 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 the 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? and (5) Final decision: The manuscript is finally accepted for publication, returned for further revision, or rejected.