Editor Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and expectations for the JOS Editorial Board members in ophthalmology and vision science publishing.
Shaping Ophthalmic Research Excellence
As a member of the JOS Editorial Board, you play a pivotal role in maintaining the scientific rigor, clinical relevance, and ethical integrity of the journal. These guidelines outline your responsibilities, decision-making framework, and communication standards.
Editors serve as the primary gatekeepers of scientific quality for the Journal of Ophthalmic Science. Your fundamental duties include:
- Evaluate assigned manuscripts for scientific validity, methodological rigor, and clinical significance
- Assess alignment with JOS scope: clinical ophthalmology, surgical techniques, diagnostic imaging, and translational research
- Select and invite qualified peer reviewers with appropriate subspecialty expertise
- Ensure all potential conflicts of interest are identified and appropriately managed
- Synthesize reviewer feedback into constructive, actionable editorial decisions
- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript contents and reviewer identities
- Uphold COPE guidelines and JOS editorial policies at all stages of evaluation
- Respond to author queries and appeals in a professional, timely manner
When a manuscript is assigned to you by the Editor-in-Chief, follow this workflow:
- Initial Assessment (48 hours): Review the submission for scope fit and basic quality. If clearly outside scope or fundamentally flawed, recommend desk rejection with justification.
- Conflict Check: Declare any personal, financial, or institutional conflicts with the authors or research topic. Recuse yourself if objectivity could be compromised.
- Reviewer Identification: Identify 3-5 potential reviewers with relevant expertise. Consider geographic and institutional diversity. Avoid reviewers who have recently collaborated with authors.
- Reviewer Invitation: Send invitations via ManuscriptZone. If initial invitees decline, promptly identify alternatives to maintain timeline.
- Monitor Progress: Track reviewer response times. Send reminders for overdue reviews. Escalate persistent delays to the editorial office.
- Decision Synthesis: After receiving reviews, synthesize feedback and formulate your editorial recommendation with detailed justification.
Selecting appropriate reviewers is critical to maintaining publication quality. Consider the following:
Subspecialty Alignment
Match reviewers to the manuscript's clinical focus: cornea/external disease, glaucoma, retina/vitreous, neuro-ophthalmology, pediatric ophthalmology, oculoplastics, or ocular oncology. For surgical technique papers, prioritize surgeons with experience in the described procedure.
Methodological Expertise
For manuscripts with complex statistical analyses, clinical trials, or epidemiological designs, include at least one reviewer with methodological/biostatistical expertise in addition to clinical reviewers.
Geographic Diversity
Where possible, select reviewers from different institutions and geographic regions to ensure diverse perspectives and minimize potential conflicts or biases.
Career Stage Balance
Consider including both established experts and promising early-career researchers. This develops future reviewers while ensuring experienced oversight.
After receiving peer reviews, you must formulate a recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief. Available decision categories:
| Decision | Criteria | Author Action |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Manuscript meets all standards; no or trivial revisions needed | Proceed to production |
| Minor Revision | Manuscript is sound but requires clarifications or minor improvements | Revise within 2 weeks; no re-review needed |
| Major Revision | Significant issues identified but potentially addressable with substantial revision | Revise within 6 weeks; will undergo re-review |
| Reject | Fundamental flaws in design, methodology, or scope alignment; or insufficient novelty | May resubmit as new submission if fundamentally restructured |
Weighing Conflicting Reviews
When reviewers disagree significantly, do not simply average their recommendations. Critically evaluate each reviewer's arguments, consider requesting an additional review if needed, and provide clear editorial justification for your final recommendation to the authors.
Professional, timely communication is essential to editorial excellence:
- Respond to new manuscript assignments within 48 hours
- Send reviewer reminders promptly when reviews become overdue
- Submit your editorial recommendation within 5 business days of receiving all reviews
- Ensure decision letters are constructive, specific, and respectful—even for rejected manuscripts
- Direct complex ethical concerns or appeals to the Editor-in-Chief for adjudication
Editors must be vigilant for potential ethical issues during evaluation:
- Verify that appropriate ethics committee approval is documented for human subjects research
- Flag any concerns about data integrity, image manipulation, or potential plagiarism
- Report suspected duplicate submission or simultaneous publication to the Editor-in-Chief
- Ensure proper informed consent documentation for identifiable clinical photographs
- Refer to COPE flowcharts when ethical concerns arise during review
Essential tools and references for your editorial work:
- ManuscriptZone Portal: Access the editor dashboard
- Decision Letter Templates: Available in the editorial resources section
- COPE Flowcharts: publicationethics.org
- JOS Author Guidelines: Instructions for Authors
JOS values the essential contribution of our editorial board members to advancing ophthalmic research. Editors are recognized through annual acknowledgment in the journal, listing on the editorial board page, and certificates of service documenting your contribution. Outstanding editors may be invited to take on expanded roles within the journal. Your service helps maintain the scientific integrity of ophthalmology research and advances knowledge that improves vision care for patients worldwide.
Questions for the Editorial Office?
Our team is available to support you with any manuscript handling queries, technical issues, or policy clarifications.
Contact Editorial Office
