Locke Science Publisher
Single-blind peer review for all journals
This workflow is an internal, step-by-step operating procedure for handling manuscripts from submission to publication. It complements the public Editorial Process page by specifying who does what, when, and what must be recorded. Journal-specific details (scope, issue schedule, section editors) can be added as an appendix.
A. Roles and responsibilities
Editor-in-Chief (EiC): overall responsibility for editorial quality, final decisions, conflict-of-interest management, and ethics escalation.
Handling Editor (HE): manages peer review for assigned manuscripts, selects reviewers, drafts decision letters, recommends decisions (or makes decisions if authorized by the EiC).
Editorial Office (EO): receives submissions, maintains records, sends routine emails, tracks timelines, coordinates production handoff, and ensures policy compliance.
Reviewers (R): independent peer reviewers; anonymous to authors (single-blind).
Production Team (PT): performs minor language edits, applies journal template, prepares proofs, finalizes publication files and metadata.
B. Standard timeline targets (recommended)
Acknowledgment of receipt: within 48 hours
Initial screening / desk decision: typically within 7 days
Reviewer invitations sent: within 3–5 days after screening pass
Peer review completion: typically within 6–10 weeks
Decision after reviews received: within 7 days
Revision windows: minor 1–3 weeks; major 3–8 weeks (journal may set exact)
Proof turnaround (author): 48 hours
(These are targets, not guarantees; document reasons for deviations.)
C. Workflow steps
1. Submission intake and logging (EO)
Receive submission at the journal’s official email address.
Create a manuscript record (unique ID) and log:
date received
title
corresponding author name/email
author list and affiliations (as provided)
manuscript type (research / review / case / project, etc.)
files received (main text, figures, tables, supplementary files)
Send an acknowledgment email within 48 hours including:
manuscript ID
next-step timeline (screening within ~7 days)
confirmation that the journal uses single-blind review
Check that submission is complete. If incomplete, request missing files immediately.
Minimum record fields: manuscript ID, dates (received, sent to review, decision dates), assigned editor, reviewer invitations/outcomes, decisions, revision rounds, final outcome.
2. Initial screening / triage (EiC or delegated HE)
Goal: decide whether to proceed to peer review.
Checklist (screening):
scope fit
originality and contribution (high-level)
baseline English clarity (journal considers English manuscripts only)
completeness (title page details, abstract, references, figures/tables cited)
required declarations when relevant (funding, competing interests, ethics approval/consent)
obvious integrity risks (duplicate submission signals, plagiarized-looking text, fabricated references, suspicious data/figures)
Outcomes:
Desk reject: out of scope or clearly unsuitable
Return for technical corrections: missing sections/files, formatting issues that prevent review
Proceed to peer review: assign handling editor and begin reviewer selection
Record in the manuscript log: screening result + brief rationale.
3. Handling editor assignment (EiC / EO)
EiC assigns a Handling Editor based on expertise and workload.
EO updates manuscript record and notifies HE with:
manuscript ID
files
any screening notes (scope, concerns, special handling)
HE confirms acceptance of assignment within 48 hours.
Conflict-of-interest check:
HE confirms no conflict. If conflict exists, HE declines and EiC reassigns.
4. Reviewer selection (HE)
Requirement: invite at least two independent reviewers.
Steps:
Identify 4–6 candidate reviewers to secure at least 2 acceptances.
Check conflicts of interest:
recent coauthorship/collaboration
same department/close institutional ties (where relevant)
supervisory/mentoring relationships
direct competitor or personal relationship
Confirm expertise matches topic and methods.
Prioritize diversity of perspective and avoid repeatedly using the same reviewers.
Record: candidate list, invitation dates, accept/decline, due date.
5. Reviewer invitations and acceptance (EO or HE)
Invitation should include:
manuscript title + abstract
review model: single-blind; reviewer anonymous to authors
confidentiality rules and conflict-of-interest requirement
deadline and expected review length
review criteria and recommendation options
how to submit the report (email reply or attached report)
If reviewer declines:
record decline reason (if provided)
invite replacement within 48 hours
If reviewer accepts:
confirm due date and provide files
record acceptance date
6. Review management and reminders (EO with HE oversight)
Send reminder 7 days before deadline.
If overdue:
send overdue reminder immediately
if no response within 7 days, HE may withdraw invitation and replace reviewer
If one review is late but the other is complete:
HE may proceed if the completed review is strong and a second reviewer cannot be secured quickly, but this should be documented and used only when justified.
Record: reminders, delays, replacements, final receipt dates.
7. Editorial decision after reviews (HE → EiC as needed)
HE evaluates:
reviewer recommendations and strength of evidence
scope fit and contribution
rigor and clarity
ethical/integrity issues raised
If reviews conflict:
HE assesses which critique is better supported
options: request clarification, consult board member, or invite an additional reviewer
Decision categories:
accept
minor revisions
major revisions
reject
Decision letter contents (to author):
decision outcome
brief editorial summary of main issues
anonymized reviewer reports
clear revision instructions and deadline
requirement for a point-by-point response document
Record: decision date + rationale summary + files sent.
8. Revision handling (EO + HE)
Upon resubmission:
EO logs revision date and confirms receipt of:
revised manuscript
response-to-reviewers document
tracked changes or highlighted changes (recommended)
HE checks whether authors addressed all major points.
Routing:
Minor revision: HE may decide without re-review if all issues resolved.
Major revision: normally return to one or more original reviewers.
If authors did not engage adequately, HE may request further revision or reject.
Record: revision round number (R1, R2…), outcomes, dates.
9. Final acceptance (EiC/HE)
Before acceptance, confirm:
scope and contribution are clear
methods/evidence support conclusions
required disclosures included (funding, competing interests, ethics/consent where relevant)
figures/tables and references are complete and consistent
manuscript is in acceptable English
Send formal acceptance email including:
confirmation of CC BY 4.0 licensing and diamond OA
next steps for production (template formatting, minor language edits, proofs)
Record: acceptance date.
10. Production handoff (EO → PT)
EO prepares the production package:
final accepted manuscript file
figures and tables (separate files if available)
author metadata (names, affiliations, emails, ORCID if provided)
funding and competing interests statements
acknowledgements and permissions notes
article type and any special notes
PT tasks:
apply journal template and layout
minor language edits (non-substantive)
format references and captions
generate proofs (PDF)
create publication-ready metadata
11. Proofing (PT + EO + authors)
Proofs sent to corresponding author with a 48-hour return request.
Authors provide corrections limited to:
typos and production errors
minor clarifications
Substantive changes require editorial approval.
Record: proof sent date, proof returned date, correction log.
12. Publication and archiving (PT + EO)
PT finalizes files and metadata.
EO schedules publication (online-first or issue assignment per journal schedule).
Publish article on journal website with:
citation details (volume/issue/pages if applicable)
DOI (if used)
CC BY 4.0 license statement
dates (received/revised/accepted/published) where applicable
Record: publication date and URL/DOI.
D. Ethics and integrity workflow (triggered when concerns arise)
If plagiarism, duplicate publication, data/figure manipulation, unethical research, or peer-review manipulation is suspected:
HE pauses review if necessary and informs EiC.
EiC requests clarification and supporting materials from authors (neutral wording).
EiC may consult an additional editor or external expert.
If severe or unresolved, escalate to CustomerCare@LockeScience.press and consider contacting the author’s institution where appropriate.
Outcomes may include rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction (post-publication).
All actions must be documented in the manuscript record.
E. Complaints and appeals workflow
EO logs complaint/appeal and acknowledges receipt within 7 days.
EiC reviews the grounds (procedural error, factual misunderstanding, bias allegation).
If warranted, EiC seeks independent input (another editor or external reviewer).
EiC issues a final written response with reasons.
Record: dates, materials reviewed, final decision.
F. Templates and checklists (recommended internal tools)
submission intake checklist
initial screening checklist
reviewer invitation template
reminder templates
decision letter templates (reject/minor/major/accept)
revision assessment checklist
production handoff checklist
corrections/retraction notice template