Our Policies
Publication Ethics AI in Research Article Processing Charges Peer Review Process Open Submission Open Access & Licensing Archiving & Management Corrections & Retractions Appeals & Complaints Conflict of Interest Plagiarism Editorial Research Integrity Copyright & LicensingQuick Links
Author Guidelines Submit Manuscript Submission QuestionsEditorial Policy and Responsibilities
Ensuring Academic Integrity and Ethical Publishing
SOLAV Journal is committed to maintaining high academic standards, editorial independence, and ethical publishing practices.
This policy defines the roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes of the editorial team, operating in accordance with international best practices and COPE guidelines.
Each submitted manuscript is assigned to a qualified Handling Editor who oversees the peer review and editorial process with objectivity and impartiality.
Editorial Independence
- Decisions independent of authors' institutions
- No influence from political or religious views
- Protected from commercial interests
- APCs do not influence editorial decisions
- Geographic neutrality maintained
Editorial Structure
- Editor-in-Chief with final decision authority
- Managing Editor coordinating workflows
- Associate/Section Editors handling manuscripts
- Editorial Board providing academic oversight
- Advisory Editors for specialized guidance
Ethical Oversight
- Investigating research misconduct
- Managing plagiarism cases
- Handling conflicts of interest
- Reviewing ethical approvals
- Enforcing data integrity standards
Reviewer Management
Selecting qualified reviewers, monitoring review quality, preventing conflicts of interest, ensuring respectful communication, and evaluating reviewer performance. Abusive, biased, or unprofessional reviews are not tolerated.
COPE Compliance
All editorial activities follow COPE guidelines and international best practices. Editors receive ongoing training in research ethics, peer review management, bias prevention, and editorial best practices to maintain high professional standards.
Editorial Structure
Clear hierarchy and defined roles ensure efficient and ethical manuscript processing.
Editor-in-Chief
Defines editorial policy and strategy, ensures academic integrity, oversees ethical investigations, makes final publication decisions, and represents the Journal externally.
Managing Editor
Coordinates manuscript processing, monitors timelines, communicates with authors and reviewers, manages editorial workflows, and supports policy implementation.
Handling Editors
Conduct initial assessments, select qualified reviewers, manage peer review process, evaluate reviewer reports, make recommendations, and ensure confidentiality.
Editorial Board
Advises on policy and strategy, reviews manuscripts, promotes academic standards, recommends reviewers, and supports outreach activities based on academic merit.
Advisory Editors
Provide specialized guidance in specific research domains, offer expert consultation on complex cases, and contribute to strategic development of the Journal.
Collaborative Structure
All editorial roles work collaboratively while maintaining clear responsibilities and accountability. Regular communication ensures consistent application of policies.
Detailed Editorial Policy
Manuscripts undergo a rigorous, multi-stage assessment process to ensure academic quality and ethical compliance.
Assessment Stages:
- Initial Editorial Screening: Check for scope, basic quality, and ethical compliance
- Assignment to Handling Editor: Based on subject expertise and availability
- Single-blind Peer Review: Minimum of two independent expert reviews
- Evaluation of Reviewer Reports: Critical assessment of feedback quality
- Author Revision: Opportunity for authors to address concerns
- Final Editorial Decision: Based on academic merit and reviewer consensus
Possible Editorial Decisions:
Accept
Manuscript meets all criteria for publication with minor or no revisions required.
Minor Revision
Requires minor corrections or clarifications before acceptance.
Major Revision
Substantive revisions required; manuscript may be re-reviewed.
Reject
Manuscript does not meet criteria for publication in current form.
Decision Criteria:
- Academic Merit: Originality, significance, methodological rigor
- Ethical Compliance: Adherence to publication ethics and guidelines
- Technical Quality: Clarity, organization, and presentation
- Reviewer Consensus: Weight given to expert peer evaluations
- Journal Fit: Alignment with aims, scope, and reader interests
To maintain efficient editorial processes and respect reviewer time, manuscripts may be rejected without external review under specific circumstances.
Grounds for Desk Rejection:
- Scope Mismatch: Falls outside the Journal's aims and scope
- Quality Standards: Fails to meet basic academic writing standards
- Ethical Violations: Clear breaches of publication ethics
- Excessive Similarity: High plagiarism or duplicate submission
- Scientific Rigor: Fundamental methodological flaws
- Language Issues: Poor English comprehension impedes review
- Incomplete Submissions: Missing required elements
- Format Violations: Does not follow submission guidelines
Desk Rejection Process:
- Initial Screening: Within 7 business days of submission
- Editor Assessment: By qualified Handling Editor
- Decision Justification: Clear, specific reasons provided
- Author Notification: Prompt communication with feedback
- Appeal Option: Right to appeal per Journal policy
Transparent Communication
Desk rejections are communicated promptly with brief but specific justification. Authors receive constructive feedback to improve future submissions. This process respects both author efforts and reviewer time.
Editors are responsible for maintaining ethical standards throughout the publication process, following COPE procedures.
Key Ethical Responsibilities:
- Misconduct Investigation: Systematic investigation of ethical concerns
- Plagiarism Management: Detection and handling of similarity issues
- Conflict Resolution: Managing author, reviewer, and editor conflicts
- Approval Verification: Reviewing ethical and regulatory approvals
- Data Integrity: Ensuring accuracy and reliability of research data
- Authorship Verification: Confirming appropriate credit and responsibility
- Transparency Enforcement: Ensuring proper disclosure of interests
- Retraction Management: Handling post-publication corrections
Investigation Procedures:
- Initial Assessment: Evaluate seriousness and evidence
- Author Consultation: Provide opportunity for response
- Evidence Gathering: Collect relevant documentation
- Expert Consultation: Seek independent expert advice
- Decision Making: Apply COPE guidelines consistently
- Action Implementation: Appropriate sanctions or corrections
- Documentation: Maintain records for transparency
COPE Alignment:
All ethical investigations follow COPE flowcharts and guidelines, including:
- COPE Flowcharts for systematic decision-making
- COPE Core Practices for consistent standards
- COPE Guidance for complex ethical situations
- Regular COPE membership review and updates
Editors must maintain strict standards regarding conflicts of interest to ensure impartial editorial decisions.
Editorial Conflict Policies:
- Mandatory Disclosure: Editors must disclose any actual or potential conflicts
- Systematic Recusal: Editors must recuse themselves from conflicted cases
- No Handling Policy: No editor may handle a manuscript with personal interest
- Transparency Requirements: Conflict management documented in records
- Training Requirements: Regular conflict recognition training
Conflicts Requiring Recusal:
- Personal Relationships: Family, close friends, or romantic partners
- Professional Collaborations: Recent (within 3 years) co-authorship
- Institutional Affiliations: Same institution as any author
- Financial Interests: Direct financial stake in research outcomes
- Academic Competition: Direct competitors in same research area
- Supervisory Relationships: Current or former students/mentees
- Advisory Roles: Formal advisory relationships with authors
- Personal Biases: Known personal disagreements or animosities
Recusal Process:
- Self-Identification: Editor identifies potential conflict
- Immediate Disclosure: Reports conflict to Managing Editor
- Documentation: Conflict recorded in manuscript tracking system
- Reassignment: Manuscript assigned to alternative editor
- Access Restriction: Conflicted editor cannot access files
- Decision Exclusion: No involvement in editorial decisions
Strict Enforcement
Failure to disclose conflicts of interest is considered serious editorial misconduct and may result in removal from editorial positions. When in doubt, editors are expected to disclose and recuse.
Editors are responsible for selecting, managing, and evaluating reviewers to maintain high-quality peer review.
Reviewer Selection Criteria:
- Expertise Matching: Subject matter expertise aligned with manuscript
- Publication Record: Demonstrated research experience in field
- Review Experience: Previous reviewing experience or training
- Geographic Diversity: Balanced international representation
- Career Stage Balance: Mix of established and emerging scholars
- Conflict-Free Status: No conflicts with authors or content
Review Quality Standards:
- Constructive Feedback: Helpful, specific suggestions for improvement
- Evidence-Based Evaluation: Comments supported by evidence
- Timely Completion: Reviews submitted within agreed timeframe
- Confidentiality Maintenance: No disclosure of manuscript content
- Professional Tone: Respectful, collegial communication
- Comprehensive Coverage: Addresses all manuscript aspects
- Clear Recommendations: Specific, actionable suggestions
- Bias Avoidance: Objective evaluation without personal bias
Prohibited Reviewer Behaviors:
The following behaviors are not tolerated and may result in removal from reviewer database:
- Abusive Language: Personal attacks or disrespectful comments
- Coercive Citation: Demanding citation of reviewer's own work
- Confidentiality Breach: Sharing manuscript content with others
- Identity Falsification: Reviewing under false identity
- Undue Influence: Attempting to manipulate editorial decisions
- Plagiarism: Using manuscript ideas without attribution
Reviewer Evaluation System:
- Performance Tracking: Timeliness, quality, and helpfulness metrics
- Editor Feedback: Regular evaluation of reviewer performance
- Quality Recognition: Acknowledgment of outstanding reviewers
- Remedial Action: Guidance or removal for poor performance
- Continuous Improvement: Regular reviewer training opportunities
SOLAV Journal invests in continuous editor development and maintains transparent operations to build trust with the scholarly community.
Editor Training Program:
- Research Ethics Training: COPE guidelines and ethical decision-making
- Peer Review Management: Effective reviewer selection and communication
- Bias Prevention: Recognizing and mitigating unconscious biases
- Editorial Best Practices: International standards and innovations
- Technical Systems Training: Manuscript tracking system proficiency
- Conflict Resolution: Managing disputes and difficult situations
- Leadership Development: For senior editorial positions
- Regular Updates: Staying current with publishing developments
Transparency Measures:
SOLAV Journal publishes the following to promote accountability:
- Editorial Policies: Complete policy documents publicly available
- Review Procedures: Clear explanation of peer review process
- Ethical Standards: Publication ethics and misconduct procedures
- Governance Structures: Editorial team roles and responsibilities
- Performance Metrics: Publication timelines and acceptance rates
- Financial Transparency: APC usage and financial management
Editorial Independence Guarantee:
All editorial decisions are made independently of:
- Authors' Institutions: No preferential treatment based on affiliation
- Geographic Location: Equal consideration regardless of country
- Political Views: No influence from political perspectives
- Religious Beliefs: Neutrality regarding religious perspectives
- Commercial Interests: Protected from publisher or sponsor influence
- Financial Considerations: APCs do not affect editorial decisions
Commitment to Excellence
SOLAV Journal's editorial team is committed to continuous improvement through regular training, transparent operations, and adherence to international best practices. Our goal is to provide fair, efficient, and high-quality editorial services to the research community.
Editorial Decision Timeline
SOLAV Journal is committed to efficient manuscript processing while maintaining rigorous review standards.
Desk Decision
1-7 business days
Initial screening and desk rejection decisions
Review Phase
3-4 weeks (median 4 weeks)
Peer review process with expert evaluation
Final Decision
1-2 weeks
Editorial decision after review completion
Timeline Notes
- Timelines may vary based on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability
- Authors receive regular updates on manuscript status
- Delays are communicated promptly with revised estimates
- Revision periods are additional to these timelines
Related Policies & Resources
For complete details on editorial processes and ethical standards, consult our related policy pages:
Editorial Questions?
Contact our Editorial Office for questions about manuscript handling or editorial policies.
[email protected]View Editorial Board
Meet our team of experienced editors and editorial board members.
Editorial Board
