Editorial Responsibilities and Policies

Role of Editors

Prime Peer adheres to the editorial standards outlined by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Editors-in-Chief are granted full autonomy in managing the editorial workflow and hold ultimate authority in determining the disposition of manuscripts. This includes the responsibility to uphold the integrity, transparency, and ethical standards of each journal.

Editorial decisions are based solely on a manuscript’s scientific merit, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, methodological rigor, and ethical compliance. Decisions are never influenced by the author’s race, nationality, religious or political beliefs, institutional affiliation, or any external governmental or private entities.

Editor Guidelines

Editors play a pivotal role in maintaining the scholarly integrity and quality of Prime Peer journals. Editors are expected to:

• Oversee the entire editorial workflow, from initial submission to final publication.
• Select qualified and diverse members of the editorial board.
• Facilitate rigorous peer review and ensure timely communication with authors and reviewers.
• Uphold ethical standards and address any concerns related to plagiarism, conflict of interest, or research misconduct.

We welcome researchers, clinicians, and academicians with strong publication and editorial experience to join our editorial boards and contribute to over 40 open access journals across the fields of science, technology, medicine, and social sciences.

Editorial and Peer Review Process

1. Initial Submission

Manuscripts must be submitted via the Prime Peer online submission system. Each submission receives a tracking ID and is assigned to an editor who evaluates whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and standards.

2. Editorial Screening

The assigned editor may consult with the editorial team to determine whether the manuscript should proceed to external peer review. If the manuscript is declined at this stage, the author is informed of the decision.

3. Peer Review Process

If selected for review:

• The editor invites suitable reviewers.
• Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit recommendations.
• The editorial team considers reviewer feedback and makes the final decision.

Authors may request double-blind peer review. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is permitted.

4. Decision and Revisions

Based on the reviewers’ evaluations, the editor may:

• Accept the manuscript.
• Request minor or major revisions, with detailed reviewer feedback.
• Reject the manuscript, with or without suggestions for resubmission.

Revised submissions should be accompanied by a point-by-point response letter, addressing each reviewer comment. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to original or new reviewers, as deemed necessary.

5. Final Submission and Acceptance

Upon satisfactory revision:

• Authors receive editorial and formatting feedback to prepare the final version.
• Copyediting may be applied to enhance clarity, consistency, and adherence to journal style (Oxford English spelling).
• High-resolution figures and all final files must be submitted through the online system or via FTP.

The manuscript is marked “Accepted” once all editorial and production requirements are met.

Manuscript Transfer Policy

If a manuscript is declined, authors may opt to transfer their submission (including reviewer reports) to another suitable Prime Peer journal using our streamlined transfer system.

Authors can choose:

• To retain previous reviews, submitting a detailed response to prior feedback.
• Or to request a fresh review, in which case the previous evaluations will not be considered.

Transferred manuscripts must meet the new journal’s editorial criteria independently.

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal rejection decisions by submitting a detailed justification. Appeals are evaluated thoroughly, but take secondary priority to new submissions.

Appeals are granted only when:

• There is evidence of a procedural or factual error.
• The authors provide significant new data.
• Reviewer bias or conflict of interest is evident.

Editors may consult original or additional reviewers during the appeal process. If an author chooses to submit the manuscript elsewhere, the appeal must be formally withdrawn before doing so.