Locke Science Publisher
This guide sets out the responsibilities and working practices for Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Editorial Board Members across all journals published by Locke Science Publisher. It is aligned with the Guide for Authors, Guide for Reviewers, the Editorial and Peer Review Process, and the Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement. All Locke Science Publisher journals use single-blind peer review.
1. Editorial purpose and core responsibilities
Editors safeguard the quality and integrity of the scholarly record. Your role is to:
maintain the journal’s scope and standards
ensure fair and independent editorial decisions
manage peer review efficiently and confidentially
detect and address ethical and integrity concerns
communicate clearly and respectfully with authors and reviewers
support a consistent, professional author experience
Editors are expected to apply policies consistently, document decisions, and avoid conflicts of interest.
2. Editorial independence and decision-making
Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s aims, and compliance with journal policies, without discrimination based on nationality, institution, gender, seniority, or personal characteristics.
Editors should not allow decisions to be influenced by commercial considerations, personal relationships, or outside pressure. If a sponsor, institution, or third party attempts to influence a decision, the Editor-in-Chief should document the issue and, if needed, escalate it to CustomerCare@LockeScience.press.
3. Confidentiality and information handling
Editors must treat all submissions and review materials as confidential.
Do not share manuscripts, reviewer identities, or reviewer reports beyond what is required for editorial handling.
Do not use unpublished content for personal advantage.
Do not upload manuscripts, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence into external tools (including generative AI tools) that cannot guarantee strict confidentiality.
Maintain reviewer anonymity in single-blind review; ensure decision letters and reviewer reports do not reveal reviewer identities.
4. Conflicts of interest
Editors must disclose and manage conflicts of interest. An editor should recuse themselves and reassign the manuscript if:
they are a co-author, collaborator, close colleague, supervisor/advisee, or have a personal relationship with an author
they have a direct financial, institutional, or competitive interest in the outcome
they feel unable to provide an impartial decision
When in doubt, the editor should disclose the situation to the Editor-in-Chief and request reassignment.
5. Workflow overview for editors
5.1 Initial screening (typically within 7 days)
On receipt of a new submission, the handling editor (or Editor-in-Chief) should check:
scope fit and relevance to the journal
completeness (title page, abstract, references, figures/tables, required statements)
baseline English clarity (journal accepts English manuscripts only)
originality indicators and obvious integrity concerns
compliance with open access licensing (CC BY 4.0) and required disclosures (funding, competing interests, ethics approval where applicable)
Possible outcomes:
desk reject (out of scope or clearly unsuitable)
return for technical corrections prior to review
send to peer review
Desk rejection should be prompt, respectful, and include a short reason.
5.2 Assigning reviewers
All Locke Science Publisher journals require at least two independent reviewers for standard research articles unless an exception is justified (e.g., editorials, invited content, clearly described journal policy exceptions).
When selecting reviewers:
prioritize subject and methods expertise
avoid conflicts of interest
avoid over-reliance on the same reviewers
aim for independent and balanced perspectives
Send clear reviewer invitations including:
manuscript title/abstract
review deadline
confidentiality expectations
conflict of interest expectations
review criteria and recommendation options
5.3 Managing the review period
Editors should monitor timelines and send reminders when needed. If a reviewer is unresponsive, promptly invite alternatives to prevent delays.
When reviewer comments are submitted:
ensure tone is professional and constructive
remove or redact identifying information if accidentally included
note any ethical allegations and handle them carefully and confidentially
5.4 Editorial decision-making
Editors should base decisions on:
reviewer reports and the manuscript’s merit
clarity, rigor, and contribution
relevance to journal scope
compliance with ethics, integrity, and disclosure requirements
Common decision outcomes:
accept
minor revisions
major revisions
reject
If reviewer reports conflict significantly:
assess which critique is better supported
request clarification from reviewers (if appropriate)
consult an additional editor or obtain an additional review when needed
Decision letters should include:
a clear decision
a concise summary of the most important issues
anonymized reviewer comments
specific instructions for revision (if applicable)
any required statements or documentation (ethics approvals, data availability, competing interests, permissions)
6. Handling revisions
6.1 What to require from authors
For minor or major revisions, require:
a revised manuscript
a response document addressing each point raised by reviewers and editors
clear indication of changes (highlighted text or tracked changes where feasible)
6.2 When to re-review
minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor alone
major revisions should usually be returned to one or more original reviewers
additional rounds should be minimized but used when essential to reach a publishable standard
Editors should verify that authors addressed:
core scientific/methodological concerns
clarity and structure
literature positioning and citation accuracy
figure/table adequacy and integrity
compliance with disclosure requirements
7. Ethics and integrity oversight
Editors are responsible for identifying and addressing potential misconduct, including:
plagiarism or undisclosed text recycling
duplicate submission or redundant publication
fabricated/falsified data or misleading image manipulation
unethical research practice (missing consent/approval where required)
undisclosed competing interests
peer review manipulation or identity concerns
If a concern arises:
pause the review process if necessary
request an explanation and supporting materials from the author(s)
consult the Editor-in-Chief and, if needed, the publisher via CustomerCare@LockeScience.press
decide outcomes fairly and consistently (rejection, revision request, correction, retraction, or escalation)
Editors should avoid making accusations in decision letters. Communicate concerns neutrally and request clarification.
8. Data, permissions, and sensitive content
Editors should confirm that:
third-party figures/tables/photos have permission where required
identifiable personal information is not published without appropriate consent
sensitive locations, vulnerable communities, or protected sites are treated responsibly
claims are supported by appropriate evidence and not misleading
Where relevant, editors may request:
ethics approval statements
consent language
data/code availability statements
raw data or original images for verification (only when needed)
9. Generative AI and editorial work
Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, or confidential correspondence into external AI tools or platforms that cannot guarantee strict confidentiality.
If a manuscript appears to contain AI-generated content that raises concerns (e.g., fabricated citations, inconsistent methods, or unclear authorship responsibility), editors may:
request disclosure of AI tool use and how outputs were verified
require correction of inaccurate citations or unsupported claims
reject manuscripts that fail integrity expectations
Editors should ensure that any policy on AI tools is applied consistently.
10. Acceptance, production, and proofs
10.1 Acceptance checks
Before final acceptance, confirm:
scope fit and contribution are clear
revisions fully address major issues
required disclosures are present (funding, competing interests, ethics approval/consent where applicable)
figures/tables are complete and correctly cited
reference list matches in-text citations
manuscript is in acceptable English
10.2 Production coordination
After acceptance, Locke Science Publisher provides:
small language edits for clarity and consistency
formatting into the journal template
metadata checks (author names, affiliations, ORCID if provided, acknowledgements)
Editors may be asked to clarify editorial decisions, article type, or special notes for production.
10.3 Proof review
Authors typically receive proofs and are asked to return corrections within 48 hours. Editors may be consulted if substantive changes are requested at proof stage.
11. Post-publication responsibilities
Editors support integrity after publication. If concerns arise (errors, ethics issues, disputes), editors may recommend:
correction/erratum
expression of concern
retraction (when findings cannot be relied upon)
Editors should document issues and coordinate with the publisher to ensure notices are clear and linked to the original article.
12. Communication standards
Editors should communicate:
promptly and respectfully
with clear reasons for decisions
with actionable guidance for revisions
without personal remarks or disparaging language
Where possible, decision letters should distinguish:
issues required for publication (must-fix)
improvements that are recommended but optional (nice-to-have)
13. Editorial records and documentation
Editors should keep clear records of:
decisions and rationales
reviewer invitations and responses
conflict of interest disclosures
ethics concerns and how they were resolved
revision rounds and compliance with requirements
These records support fairness, transparency, and accountability.
14. When to escalate to the publisher
Escalate to CustomerCare@LockeScience.press when:
there is suspected serious misconduct or legal risk
an author threatens legal action or harassment
there is a dispute involving reviewer identity, ethics, or confidentiality
there are repeated attempts to manipulate peer review
a retraction or expression of concern is being considered
15. Contact
For routine editorial handling, use the journal’s editorial office email.
For publisher-level ethics, policy, or operational concerns, contact: CustomerCare@LockeScience.press