This policy explains who the editors of IJRMP are, how they are chosen, what they are responsible for, and how their work is evaluated every year.
Editorial roles
| Role | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Editor-in-Chief | Leads the journal, sets editorial standards, makes final decisions on papers and appeals, and appoints and evaluates the editorial board. |
| Associate editors | Handle papers in their subjects: initial check, choice of reviewers, and a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. |
| Editorial board members | Advise on scope and policy, review papers in their field, and suggest reviewers. |
| Reviewers | Assess papers and report on originality, method, results and ethics (see the reviewer guidelines). |
Who can become an editor
- A doctorate (PhD) or equivalent research experience in one of the journal’s subjects
- A record of published peer-reviewed research, checkable through Google Scholar, ORCID or a university profile
- A current academic, research or professional position
- No record of research or publication misconduct
- Willingness to follow the journal’s publication ethics and peer review policies
How editors are selected
- Application or nominationResearchers apply through Join the board, or are nominated by a current editor.
- Check of the recordThe Editor-in-Chief checks the candidate’s qualifications, publications and position using public sources.
- DiscussionThe Editor-in-Chief discusses the role, duties and time needed with the candidate.
- AppointmentThe candidate confirms their affiliation and any conflicts of interest in writing and is appointed in writing, with the publisher’s agreement, for a term of three years that may be renewed.
- ListingThe editor’s name, position, institution and start date are listed on the editorial board page.
How editors are evaluated
Every editor is evaluated once a year by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is evaluated by the publisher. The evaluation looks at:
- Number of papers handled during the year
- Time taken for the initial check and for decisions
- Quality of decisions: whether they are supported by the reviewers’ reports and are clearly explained to authors
- Choice of suitable, independent reviewers
- Following the ethics, conflict of interest and confidentiality rules
- Complaints and appeals about the editor’s decisions, and their outcome
- Responsiveness to authors, reviewers and the editorial office
After the evaluation an editor continues in the role, receives feedback on what to improve, or may be asked to step down. The result of each yearly review is recorded in the journal’s internal file. Reviewers are evaluated in the same way on the quality and timeliness of their reports; inactive reviewers are removed from the panel.
Ending an appointment
An appointment ends at the end of its term, at the editor’s request, or early if the editor does not meet the duties above or breaches the ethics policy.
Independence and conflicts of interest
- Editors declare any conflict of interest and never handle their own papers, papers from their own institution, or papers by recent co-authors.
- Papers submitted by editors are handled by another editor, and the author has no access to the review.
- Payment of the article processing charge has no influence on any editorial decision.
Review of this policy
The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board review this policy once a year against the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Changes are published on this page.