Editorial Policies
Editorial Governance, Independence and Decision-Making Policy
Purpose and Scope
The International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” is committed to maintaining an independent, fair, transparent, and academically rigorous editorial process.
This policy defines the Journal’s framework for editorial governance, editorial independence, manuscript assessment, peer-review oversight, editorial decision-making, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, the separation of editorial and Publisher responsibilities, and the administration of editorial records.
The policy applies to the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, reviewers, persons acting in an editorial capacity on behalf of the Journal, and, where relevant, the Publisher.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly considerations and the Journal’s applicable policies and procedures. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decision-making but do not constitute the editorial decision itself.
This policy should be read together with the Journal’s Publication Ethics, Peer Review Process, Review Ethics, Guidelines for Reviewers, Generative AI Policy, Complaints and Appeals procedure, and other applicable Journal policies.
1. Editorial Independence
The Journal maintains a clear separation between scholarly editorial decision-making and the administrative, contractual, commercial, production, and technical functions of the Publisher.
Decisions concerning whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected are made on scholarly grounds and are not determined by:
- Article Processing Charges or payment status;
- commercial interests of the Publisher;
- institutional affiliation;
- nationality;
- professional status;
- personal relationships;
- sponsorship or funding arrangements;
- potential citation or publicity value;
- other considerations unrelated to the scholarly assessment of the manuscript.
The Publisher does not determine the scholarly merit, methodological quality, or scientific validity of submitted manuscripts and does not direct the outcome of peer review.
Editorial independence does not remove the obligation of editors to apply the Journal’s policies consistently, document significant editorial decisions, manage conflicts of interest, and protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
2. Editorial Authority and Final Decision-Making
The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the administration and integrity of the Journal’s editorial process.
The final editorial decision on a manuscript is:
- Accept;
- Revise;
- Reject.
Except where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, the final decision to accept, request revision of, or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
The decision is informed, as applicable, by:
- the manuscript itself;
- the Journal’s Aims and Scope;
- initial editorial assessment;
- reviewer reports and recommendations;
- methodological and scholarly considerations;
- author responses and revisions;
- applicable Journal policies;
- any relevant research-integrity or publication-ethics concerns.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory scholarly assessments. They inform but do not replace editorial judgement.
An editorial decision may therefore differ from an individual reviewer recommendation where the available scholarly evidence, the reasoning contained in the reports, the manuscript itself, or the applicable Journal policies justify a different conclusion.
The Editor-in-Chief remains responsible for ensuring that the reasons supporting significant editorial decisions are appropriately documented.
3. Conflicts of Interest and Transfer of Editorial Authority
Editors and persons participating in manuscript handling must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, editorial, or other interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.
A person with a relevant conflict of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision concerning the affected manuscript or case.
Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, including where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or co-author of the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief must be excluded from:
- initial editorial assessment;
- reviewer selection;
- peer-review management;
- assessment of reviewer reports;
- editorial correspondence relating to the evaluation;
- revision assessment;
- the final editorial decision.
Editorial authority must then be transferred to a qualified, non-conflicted member of the Editorial Board or another appropriately designated independent editor.
The person assuming responsibility must have sufficient subject or editorial competence to manage the manuscript or case and must remain independent of the conflicted person.
The transfer of authority and the relevant recusal should be appropriately documented.
4. Initial Editorial Assessment
Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.
The initial assessment may be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and/or a designated member of the Editorial Board.
The assessment may consider:
- consistency with the Journal’s Aims and Scope;
- scholarly relevance;
- apparent contribution to knowledge;
- basic academic quality;
- methodological adequacy sufficient to justify external review;
- completeness of the submission;
- compliance with essential submission and formal requirements;
- originality and similarity-screening information;
- potential research-integrity or publication-ethics concerns;
- suitability for external peer review.
The purpose of the initial assessment is to determine whether there are grounds for proceeding to peer review, requesting clarification or correction before review, or recommending desk rejection. The final decision to reject a manuscript without external peer review is made by the Editor-in-Chief, except where editorial authority has been transferred because of a conflict of interest.
Initial assessment is an editorial process and does not constitute peer review.
Where a potential integrity concern is identified, the matter is considered in accordance with the Journal’s Publication Ethics policy.
5. Desk Rejection
A manuscript may be rejected before external peer review where, on the basis of the initial editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief determines that external review is not justified. Where the initial assessment was conducted by a designated member of the Editorial Board, that member’s findings and recommendations are considered by the Editor-in-Chief in making the final decision. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, the decision is made by the person to whom editorial authority has been transferred under Section 3 of this policy.
Grounds may include:
- the manuscript falls outside the Journal’s Aims and Scope;
- clear failure to satisfy essential submission requirements;
- insufficient scholarly quality or contribution;
- substantial methodological deficiencies identifiable during initial assessment;
- credible indications of research-integrity or publication-ethics concerns;
- duplicate or concurrent submission;
- inappropriate or substantial textual or content overlap;
- continued substantial non-compliance with essential formal requirements after an opportunity to correct them.
A research-integrity or publication-ethics concern may provide a sufficient editorial basis not to proceed with external review. Such a decision does not, by itself, constitute a formal finding of research misconduct.
Similarity-screening reports are interpreted editorially in context.
A numerical similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism or another form of publication misconduct and must not be treated as an automatic basis for a misconduct finding.
The nature, source, attribution, context, extent, and scholarly significance of any identified overlap must be considered in accordance with the Journal’s Publication Ethics policy.
Where appropriate, the Journal may request clarification or supporting information before determining the appropriate editorial response.
6. Peer-Review Oversight
Manuscripts that successfully complete initial editorial assessment and remain under consideration for publication are submitted to external peer review in accordance with the Journal’s Peer Review Process.
The Journal applies double-blind peer review.
The standard peer-review model involves two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise.
The Editor-in-Chief selects or approves reviewers. Members of the Editorial Board may assist in identifying suitable reviewers where relevant subject expertise is required.
Reviewer selection should take into account:
- relevant scholarly expertise;
- ability to provide an independent assessment;
- absence of known material conflicts of interest;
- confidentiality requirements;
- suitability to evaluate the subject and methodology of the manuscript.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for editorial oversight of the peer-review process except where responsibility has been transferred because of a conflict of interest.
Detailed procedural requirements are provided in the Journal’s Peer Review Process, Review Ethics, and Guidelines for Reviewers.
7. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations
Peer review is intended to provide reasoned scholarly assessment that assists editorial decision-making and supports the improvement of manuscripts where appropriate.
Reviewer reports should evaluate the manuscript within the reviewer’s area of competence and should provide sufficiently clear scholarly reasoning to support the reviewer’s conclusions.
Reviewers may recommend an editorial outcome, but their recommendations are not binding decisions.
An unsupported recommendation such as “Accept” or “Reject”, without adequate scholarly reasoning, should not by itself be treated as a sufficient basis for editorial decision-making.
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates reviewer reports in conjunction with the manuscript, applicable Journal policies, and other relevant information.
Where a reviewer raises a possible research-integrity or publication-ethics concern, the reviewer should report the concern confidentially to the Journal. The reviewer is not responsible for independently investigating the allegation.
Such concerns are handled under the Journal’s Publication Ethics policy.
8. Divergent Reviewer Recommendations
Different scholarly assessments are an expected possibility within peer review and do not automatically require the appointment of an additional reviewer.
Where reviewer reports substantially diverge, the Editor-in-Chief considers:
- the reasoning presented in each report;
- the scholarly and methodological issues identified;
- the manuscript itself;
- the relevance and expertise reflected in the reviews;
- author explanations or responses, where applicable;
- the Journal’s editorial and ethical requirements.
The Editor-in-Chief may make an editorial decision on the basis of the available reports where they provide an adequate basis for reliable editorial judgement.
A third reviewer is not automatically required solely because two reviewers recommend different outcomes.
Where the Editor-in-Chief considers that the available reports do not provide a sufficient basis for a reliable editorial decision, an additional independent review may be sought.
9. Revision and Reassessment
A decision requesting revision is an editorial decision made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewer comments provide the scholarly basis and recommendations relevant to the requested revision, but the extent and conditions of reassessment are determined editorially.
Authors are expected to address substantive reviewer and editorial comments in good faith and, where requested, explain how the manuscript has been revised or why a particular recommendation has not been followed. To document the author’s response and support editorial monitoring of revisions, the Journal may use the approved Supplementary Author Response and Editorial Monitoring Table. Such a form is a supplementary monitoring tool and does not replace the detailed reviewer or editorial comments.
Substantial revision
A manuscript requiring substantial revision is returned for reassessment to those original reviewers whose substantive comments or recommendations require verification of their implementation. Where substantive comments requiring verification were provided by one of two reviewers, reassessment may be sought from that reviewer. Where such substantive comments or recommendations were provided by both reviewers, the revised manuscript is returned to both unless the Editor-in-Chief determines another justified reassessment route.
Where an original reviewer:
- is unavailable;
- declines further review;
- is unable to continue;
- develops a relevant conflict of interest;
the Editor-in-Chief may appoint another qualified independent reviewer.
Minor revision
Where revisions are limited and do not require renewed external scholarly assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may determine that editorial reassessment is sufficient.
A manuscript subject to minor revision may nevertheless be returned to a reviewer where the Editor-in-Chief considers further external assessment appropriate.
A request for revision does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript.
10. Editorial Decisions Following Peer Review
After considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, revisions, and other relevant information, the Editor-in-Chief determines the appropriate editorial outcome.
The principal outcomes are:
- Accept — the manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to completion of the applicable production and publishing requirements;
- Revise — further changes, clarification, or reassessment are required before a final decision can be made;
- Reject — the manuscript is not accepted for publication.
Acceptance reflects the Journal’s scholarly editorial determination.
Acceptance does not mean that the Publisher assumes responsibility for the accuracy of the research or that subsequent legitimate post-publication action is excluded where new information or concerns arise.
Administrative and production requirements following acceptance are separate from the scholarly decision by which the manuscript was accepted.
11. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors, Editorial Board Members, or Persons Associated with the Journal
Membership in the Editorial Board, an editorial role, a reviewer relationship, a relationship with the Publisher, or another formal association with the Journal does not provide preferential treatment in manuscript evaluation.
Where the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, a member of the Editorial Board, a reviewer, a Publisher representative, or another person associated with the Journal is an author or co-author of a manuscript, that person must not participate in:
- reviewer selection;
- peer-review management;
- assessment of reviewer reports;
- editorial correspondence concerning the evaluation;
- reassessment of revisions;
- the final editorial decision.
The manuscript must be handled by a qualified person who has no relevant conflict of interest.
Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author, co-author, or otherwise conflicted, responsibility must be transferred to a qualified non-conflicted member of the Editorial Board or another appropriately designated independent editor.
Where applicable, an appropriate conflict-of-interest disclosure should be included in the published article.
12. Confidentiality and Use of Unpublished Information
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, supporting documentation, and other unpublished materials obtained through the editorial process must be treated as confidential.
Editors, Editorial Board members, reviewers, and other persons participating in manuscript assessment must not disclose confidential manuscript information except where disclosure is reasonably necessary for the legitimate administration of the editorial process.
Unpublished information obtained through manuscript handling must not be used for personal, academic, professional, financial, or other advantage.
Confidential information may be shared where reasonably necessary for:
- peer review;
- editorial assessment;
- obtaining clarification or evidence;
- management of a conflict of interest;
- consideration of a research-integrity concern;
- consultation with a competent institution or authority;
- implementation of a legitimate editorial or post-publication action.
Any such disclosure should be limited to information reasonably necessary for the relevant purpose.
Editors and reviewers must also comply with the Journal’s rules concerning the use of generative AI and external AI services.
13. Research Integrity and Publication-Ethics Concerns
Research-integrity and publication-ethics concerns identified during manuscript assessment, peer review, editorial decision-making, or after publication are handled under the Journal’s Publication Ethics policy and other applicable procedures.
Possible concerns may include, among other matters:
- plagiarism or inappropriate overlap;
- fabrication or falsification;
- unreliable or manipulated data;
- duplicate or concurrent publication;
- inappropriate authorship practices;
- citation manipulation;
- undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- peer-review manipulation;
- inappropriate use of generative AI;
- ethical or legal concerns affecting the research;
- other matters that may affect the reliability or integrity of the scholarly record.
Editors and reviewers should not presume misconduct solely because a concern has been raised.
Where necessary, the Journal may request clarification, supporting documentation, research data, methodological information, ethics documentation, or other relevant evidence.
The Journal conducts editorial assessment of matters within its responsibility but does not replace universities, research institutions, ethics committees, regulatory bodies, research-integrity offices, or other competent organisations empowered to conduct formal investigations.
14. Generative AI in Editorial and Peer-Review Processes
Scientific assessment and editorial decision-making remain human responsibilities.
Generative AI systems must not replace accountable editorial judgement or peer-review responsibility.
Editors and reviewers must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and must comply with the Journal’s restrictions concerning the submission of confidential manuscript materials to external generative AI or AI-assisted services.
Any use of AI-assisted technologies in editorial or peer-review processes must remain consistent with:
- confidentiality requirements;
- applicable data-protection and intellectual-property obligations;
- human accountability for scholarly assessment;
- the Journal’s Generative AI Policy.
An editor or reviewer remains personally responsible for the scholarly assessment, reasoning, recommendation, or editorial decision attributed to them.
15. Separation of Editorial and Publisher Responsibilities
Editorial and Publisher responsibilities are institutionally distinct.
The Editor-in-Chief and, where applicable, other non-conflicted editorial authorities are responsible for scholarly editorial functions, including:
- initial manuscript assessment;
- peer-review oversight;
- reviewer selection or approval;
- evaluation of reviewer reports;
- revision assessment;
- editorial decisions;
- assessment of research-integrity concerns within the Journal’s competence;
- scholarly determinations relating to the integrity of the publication record.
The Publisher does not participate in the scientific assessment of manuscripts, peer-review judgement, or the determination of whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
The Publisher is responsible, as applicable, for administrative and publishing functions including:
- publishing administration;
- contractual matters;
- legal and organisational matters;
- production;
- technical implementation;
- website and publishing-platform administration;
- DOI and metadata administration;
- dissemination;
- licensing administration;
- implementation of preservation and archiving arrangements;
- administration of Article Processing Charges and other applicable publishing obligations.
Administrative implementation by the Publisher does not transfer scientific editorial authority to the Publisher.
16. Article Processing Charges and Editorial Independence
Article Processing Charges are administratively separate from scholarly assessment and editorial decision-making.
The applicable APC does not influence:
- reviewer selection;
- reviewer recommendations;
- peer-review assessment;
- requests for revision;
- acceptance;
- rejection;
- scholarly evaluation of the manuscript.
No payment is required as a condition for obtaining a favourable peer-review recommendation or editorial decision.
The decision to accept a manuscript is based on scholarly considerations and remains independent of payment.
This separation does not prevent the Publisher from applying the Journal’s separate Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy after acceptance where applicable obligations arising from the publishing agreement or Article Processing Charge have not been fulfilled.
Any such action is administrative and contractual in nature and does not alter the scientific basis of the original editorial acceptance decision.
17. Post-Publication Editorial Actions
The Journal may consider post-publication action where an error, research-integrity concern, publication-ethics issue, or other matter affecting the scholarly record is identified after publication.
Depending on the applicable policy and circumstances, post-publication action may include:
- correction;
- corrigendum or erratum;
- addendum;
- Expression of Concern;
- retraction;
- article removal in exceptional circumstances.
The relevant editorial determination is made by the competent non-conflicted editorial authority in accordance with the applicable Journal procedure.
The Publisher implements the necessary publishing, platform, DOI/metadata, production, or other technical actions required to give effect to that editorial determination.
The Publisher does not independently determine the scientific validity or reliability of the article.
Post-publication measures are governed by the Journal’s applicable policy concerning Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern and Article Removal.
18. Administrative Withdrawal as a Separate Process
Administrative withdrawal is distinct from scientific or research-integrity post-publication action.
Where an article is subject to administrative withdrawal solely because of non-fulfilment of applicable obligations arising from the publishing agreement or Article Processing Charge after acceptance, the action:
- is administrative and contractual in nature;
- does not constitute a retraction;
- does not constitute a finding of research misconduct;
- does not determine that the research is scientifically invalid, unreliable, unethical, or fraudulent;
- does not alter the scholarly assessment on which the original acceptance decision was based.
Administrative withdrawal is governed exclusively by the Journal’s separate Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy.
19. Complaints and Appeals
Complaints and appeals concerning editorial handling or editorial decisions are considered under the Journal’s separate Complaints and Appeals procedure.
A complaint or appeal should identify the manuscript, publication, decision, or matter concerned and explain the grounds on which review is requested.
Relevant supporting information should be provided where available.
Complaints and appeals must be handled by persons who do not have a relevant conflict of interest.
Where the Editor-in-Chief is personally involved in, or has a relevant conflict concerning, the matter under review, responsibility must be transferred in accordance with the applicable Complaints and Appeals procedure.
The outcome and relevant reasons should be appropriately documented and communicated in accordance with that procedure.
20. Editorial Records and Documentation
The Journal maintains appropriate documentation of significant editorial processes and decisions.
Depending on the manuscript or matter concerned, editorial records may include:
- submission information;
- initial editorial assessment;
- reviewer invitations and reviewer status;
- reviewer reports;
- identified conflicts of interest and recusals;
- author responses;
- revision history;
- significant editorial correspondence;
- editorial decisions;
- documentation relating to research-integrity or publication-ethics concerns;
- relevant supporting evidence;
- records concerning post-publication editorial actions.
Records are maintained with appropriate regard for confidentiality, data protection, legitimate editorial needs, and the integrity of the Journal’s processes.
Documentation should be sufficient to enable the Journal to understand and, where legitimately necessary, review the basis on which a significant editorial action or decision was taken.
21. External Standards and Reference Framework
This Editorial Policies document is an institutional policy of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert”.
The Journal applies its own editorial procedures and retains responsibility for interpreting and administering them.
In developing and applying its editorial governance framework, the Journal refers, where relevant, to internationally recognised scholarly-publishing and research-integrity guidance, including:
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
- Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, developed jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME;
- The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity — Revised Edition 2023, developed by ALLEA;
- other applicable professional, ethical, and legal standards relevant to scholarly publishing.
These frameworks are used as reference points and do not replace the Journal’s own policies, procedures, institutional responsibility, or case-specific editorial judgement.
Official reference sources:
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
22. Policy Governance and Review
This policy is owned by the Editorial Board of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” and approved by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.
The policy is reviewed periodically and may be updated in response to:
- changes in the Journal’s editorial procedures;
- experience gained through application of the policy;
- developments in scholarly publishing and research integrity;
- changes in relevant international guidance;
- applicable legal or regulatory requirements;
- changes in related Journal policies.
Material revisions are identified through the version number and review date displayed at the beginning of the policy.
Where revision of this policy affects another Journal policy or procedure, the related documents should be reviewed for consistency so that the Journal does not maintain conflicting descriptions of the same editorial process.