Journal of Ophthalmic Science · Editorial practice
Guidelines for Editors
JOS editors provide accountable scholarly oversight: they assess scope and integrity, select qualified independent reviewers, interpret the evidence and make or recommend decisions without regard to article charges, memberships or optional services.
Editorial charter
- Model
- Single-blind peer review
- Reviewers
- Normally at least two specialists when external review proceeds
- Final oversight
- Editor-in-Chief or formally delegated independent editor
- Scope
- Clinical and translational ophthalmology
I
Editorial role and accountability
An editorial appointment carries continuing responsibility for the fairness, competence and integrity of manuscript handling. It is not an honorary title or a route to favorable treatment of an editor’s own work.
Independent judgment
Assess manuscripts on scope, scientific merit, clinical relevance and integrity. Commercial considerations and author relationships must not influence the recommendation.
Competent handling
Accept an assignment only when the subject and method can be assessed responsibly. Ask the editorial office to add methodological expertise where needed.
Conflict management
Declare personal, professional, institutional and financial interests before handling begins. Recuse when objectivity could reasonably be questioned.
Documented reasoning
Record the basis for reviewer selection, ethical escalation and the recommendation so the editorial process remains explainable and auditable.
II
Manuscript-handling workflow
Use the manuscript record as the authoritative workspace and keep the editorial office informed when expertise, ethics or timing requires intervention.
Accept or recuse
Check subject competence, method competence, relationships with the authors, institutional links, financial interests and workload. Decline promptly if independent handling is not possible.
Initial assessment
Confirm JOS scope, article type, minimum scientific coherence, ethics and consent declarations, trial registration where applicable, and the presence of files needed for review.
Select reviewers
Invite specialists whose combined clinical, scientific and methodological expertise matches the manuscript. Check independence before invitation.
Monitor review
Track invitations and reports in ManuscriptZone. Replace unavailable reviewers and notify the office when the invitation deadline or a material concern cannot be managed safely.
Evaluate reports
Judge the reasoning in each report rather than counting recommendations. Seek another opinion when reports conflict or necessary expertise is missing.
Record the decision
Issue or recommend a decision supported by specific scientific and editorial reasons. Separate required revisions from optional suggestions.
III
Selecting independent reviewers
- Match ophthalmic subspecialty and the manuscript’s clinical setting, intervention, imaging modality or disease area.
- Add statistical, trial, diagnostic-accuracy, epidemiological, engineering or qualitative expertise when the design requires it.
- Check recent coauthorship, direct collaboration, close institutional relationships, supervisory relationships and known financial interests.
- Avoid selecting reviewers solely because the authors suggested them, and do not use reviewers whose identity or contact details cannot be verified.
- Seek complementary perspectives without using geography, seniority or reputation as a substitute for relevant expertise.
- Do not invite a person to review their own work, the work of a close collaborator, or a manuscript where competitive interests could impair objectivity.
Editors’ own submissions
An editor must not access reviewer identities, reports or decisions for their own manuscript beyond what is provided to any author.
The manuscript must be assigned to an independent editor with no reporting or personal relationship that could compromise the process. Editorial service confers no advantage in review or acceptance.
IV
Clinical and research-integrity checks
| Area | What the editor checks | When to escalate |
|---|---|---|
| Human research | Ethics approval, consent, Declaration of Helsinki statement and consistency between the protocol and reported study. | Missing approval, retrospective approval, unclear exemptions or concerns that participants were exposed outside an approved protocol. |
| Patient privacy | Written publication consent for identifiable periocular or facial images and removal of unnecessary identifiers. | Consent is absent, ambiguous or incompatible with the images and clinical detail supplied. |
| Trials | Prospective public registration where applicable, registered outcomes and explanation of deviations. | Late or absent registration, undisclosed outcome changes or material divergence from the registered protocol. |
| Images and diagnostics | Acquisition, grading, processing, reference standards, quality control and disclosure of AI-assisted enhancement or analysis. | Duplicated, selectively altered or inconsistently processed images; unavailable source files; unsupported diagnostic claims. |
| Data and statistics | Data availability, effect estimates, uncertainty, missing-data handling and conclusions proportionate to design. | Implausible data, unexplained exclusions, inappropriate analysis, inaccessible evidence or conclusions unsupported by results. |
| Competing interests | Funding, device, pharmaceutical, employment, patent and other relationships relevant to the work. | Undeclared commercial involvement, sponsor control or an editor/reviewer conflict that affects independence. |
V
Recommendations and decision letters
Available outcomes should reflect what the evidence supports and whether identified problems can be corrected within the present manuscript.
Accept
Use only when the record is complete and remaining changes are production-related. Acceptance must not depend on payment or use of an optional service.
Minor revision
Use for bounded clarifications or corrections that do not alter the study’s central analysis or conclusions.
Major revision
Use when substantial but feasible changes to analysis, reporting or interpretation are required. Do not invite revision when the design cannot answer the research question.
Reject
Use for scope mismatch, unresolvable design or integrity problems, evidence insufficient for the claims, or failure to meet ethical and reporting requirements.
A decision letter should identify the governing issues, reconcile conflicting reviewer requests, remove unnecessary citation demands and state what is required for further consideration. Authors may appeal through the documented editorial route; an appeal is reviewed independently of the original outcome where practicable.
VI
Confidentiality, AI tools and post-publication duties
- Use manuscript content only for editorial assessment and do not disclose authors, reviewers, data, images or correspondence outside the authorized workflow.
- Do not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review or reveal reviewer identities.
- Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, image manipulation or authorship irregularity to the Editor-in-Chief; do not investigate privately.
- Refer complaints, appeals and legal or safeguarding concerns to the editorial office with the complete decision record.
- After publication, cooperate with documented assessment of corrections, expressions of concern and retractions while preserving the integrity of the record.
Activity and conduct
Respond to assignments and invitations by the date stated in the system. If the assignment cannot be completed competently, independently or within the requested period, decline or contact the editorial office promptly.
Recommendations must remain professional, evidence-based and free from discrimination, coercive citation requests or personal criticism.
Confidential manuscripts and AI systems
Do not upload manuscript text, images, data, reviewer reports or author information to a public or unauthorized AI service. An automated system must not make the editorial decision. Any authorized tool use must comply with JOS confidentiality and data-protection requirements and be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief or editorial office.
Policy questions or suspected integrity concerns should be sent to info@openaccesspub.org with the manuscript identifier and no unnecessary patient information.
Handle an assigned manuscript
Use the secure editorial system for reviewer invitations, confidential correspondence, recommendations and decision records.
Open ManuscriptZone