Editor Guidelines

Essential guidelines for JCRHAP editors handling HIV/AIDS manuscript evaluation.

Editors are responsible for fair and efficient evaluation of submitted HIV manuscripts. Key responsibilities include assessing manuscript suitability, selecting appropriate peer reviewers with HIV expertise, synthesizing reviewer feedback into actionable decisions, and communicating clearly with authors.

• Assess each HIV submission for scope, quality, and contribution to the field
• Identify and invite qualified peer reviewers with relevant HIV expertise
• Evaluate reviewer comments and make balanced editorial decisions
• Provide constructive guidance to authors in revision requests
• Ensure timely processing through the editorial workflow
• Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and author information

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist. Conflicts include manuscripts from close collaborators, students, or colleagues at the same institution, as well as competing research interests or pharmaceutical relationships. When conflicts arise, editors should transfer HIV manuscripts to alternative handlers promptly.

Editorial decisions should be based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to HIV/AIDS science. Decisions must be fair, unbiased, and consistent with journal policies. Provide clear rationale for decisions, especially rejections, to help authors improve.

Editors must watch for ethical issues including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, and authorship disputes. Suspected misconduct should be reported to the editorial office. Editors ensure HIV research involving human subjects includes appropriate ethics approvals.

Editors should maintain professional communication with authors, reviewers, and staff. Response times should be reasonable. Authors should receive regular updates on manuscript status. Constructive feedback helps authors improve their HIV research.