Editorial Mistakes to Watch Out fir in New Journals

Overturning Previous Editorial Decisions Without Just Cause As a new editor taking over, it's generally recommended not to overturn the previous editor’s acceptance decisions unless serious problems are identified, such as plagiarism or data fabrication. Arbitrarily changing previously accepted decisions could damage the journal's reputation and workflow.

Linking Editorial Decisions to Internal Journal Targets A critical "don't" for editors is to link editorial decisions to internal targets. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript should be based only on the paper's importance, originality, clarity, and its relevance to the journal's stated scope and remit. Focusing on meeting quantitative targets like a rejection rate rather than scientific merit can compromise quality and ethical standards. Avoid asking editors to expedite decisions for metric purposes and do not disclose internal journal targets for publication or turnaround time externally. For new journals, it is more appropriate to refer to the importance of consistent output with high quality.

Failing to Establish and Document Clear Policies and Procedures A well-managed infrastructure is essential to a journal’s success. This includes establishing policies to address a variety of issues outlined in COPE’s Core Practices and those that may otherwise arise. Rookie mistakes include not having clear policies for handling submissions, lacking a defined peer-review process appropriate for the journal and field, not developing processes to help identify ethical concerns, and not having published procedures for authors' appeals against editorial decisions and for handling complaints. New journals should work with their publisher or owner/editorial office to determine submission handling processes and comply with principles like the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Neglecting to Develop Processes for Identifying and Handling Ethical Concerns Editors play an essential role in preserving the integrity of scholarly publishing. A significant rookie mistake is failing to develop clear processes for handling allegations of misconduct, conflicts of interest/competing interests, data and reproducibility issues, ethical oversight, and intellectual property concerns. Journals must take allegations of misconduct seriously pre-publication and post-publication and should have mechanisms for receiving and responding to such allegations. It is the editor's responsibility to define the types of misconduct for their journal and outline policies and procedures. Even in submitted or published articles, the editor or publisher should follow COPE's guidance when made aware of any allegation. This responsibility extends to investigating suspected misconduct even in submissions not intended for publication.

Lacking a System for Handling Submissions from Editors or Editorial Board Members Editors should not be denied the ability to publish in their own journal, but extra precautions must be taken to avoid impropriety. A common mistake is not having a procedure in place for handling submissions from editors or members of the editorial board that ensures the peer review is handled independently of the author/editor.

Failing to Provide Constructive Feedback or Clear Reasons for Rejection While rejecting manuscripts is part of the process, failing to clearly state the reasons for rejection or provide constructive feedback (e.g., based on reviewer comments) can be detrimental. Decisions should be based solely on merit, and authors deserve to understand why their work was not suitable for the journal. Common valid reasons for rejection include the manuscript being out of scope, poor quality, or flawed methodology.

Not Establishing Clear Policies on Resubmission and Appeals Journals should have defined policies regarding the possibility and process for resubmitting previously rejected manuscripts and for appealing editorial decisions. Failing to do so can lead to confusion and disputes. There should be a clear process for appeals against decisions like "Reject and decline resubmission".

Making Decisions Based on Non-Scientific Criteria Editorial decisions should only be based on the scientific content and relevance of the manuscript. Relying on arbitrary criteria not related to the science (such as the author's affiliation, country, or perceived status) would be a significant rookie mistake and ethically questionable.

Neglecting Plagiarism Checks and Scope Assessment During Initial Screening Crucial steps in the editorial process include confirming the manuscript fits the journal scope and running plagiarism checks. Failing to perform these essential checks can result in publishing unsuitable or unethical content, which damages the journal's credibility.

Not Being Willing to Publish Corrections, Clarifications, Retractions, and Apologies Editors should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. Prompt retraction of a seriously flawed article is a responsible action. Hesitancy or refusal to correct the scholarly record when necessary is a serious mistake.

By focusing on establishing robust, ethical, and transparent processes from the outset, a new academic journal can avoid these common pitfalls and build a strong foundation for its reputation.