For Editors

Once a submission clears the automated integrity check and enters the Screening queue, the Chief Editor is responsible for a rapid qualitative assessment. This step is not peer review; it is a gatekeeping pass to protect reviewer time and ensure only appropriate manuscripts advance.

What to check:

• Integrity flags. The system displays any flags raised during the automated check (missing ORCID, absent ethics declaration, file integrity issues). A manuscript with unresolved red flags should not advance to review without author clarification.
• Scope fit.Does the submission fall within the journal's published scope? Out-of-scope manuscripts should be desk-rejected promptly rather than sent to reviewers.
• Minimum quality threshold. Is the English sufficiently clear for reviewers to evaluate the science? Is there an abstract, a methods section, and a reference list? Manuscripts that are clearly incomplete may be returned to the author with specific instructions before any review is attempted.
• Ethics concerns. If the submission involves human or animal subjects without an IRB/ethics statement, or if the acknowledgements suggest a conflict of interest that has not been declared, flag for ethics review before proceeding.

Decision tree after triage:

• Route to Field Editor — manuscript passes scope, integrity, and quality threshold. Assign the most appropriate Field Editor from the assignment panel.
• Desk reject — manuscript is out of scope, fails a critical integrity check, or is of obviously insufficient quality. Use a templated rejection letter; state the reason clearly but without providing a full review.
• Return to author — manuscript is in-scope but has a correctable problem (incomplete declarations, missing data availability statement, language below threshold). Specify exactly what must be addressed before the submission can proceed.

After a manuscript passes initial triage, the Chief Editor assigns a Field Editor. This assignment should happen within two working days of the submission entering Screening.

Selection criteria:

• Domain expertise.Match the manuscript's primary subject area to a Field Editor whose recent publications and declared expertise align. The assignment panel displays each editor's self-declared subject tags.
• Workload balance.The reviewer-assignment service tracks the number of active manuscripts per Field Editor. Prefer editors whose open-manuscript count is below the journal average. The dashboard displays a load indicator (low / medium / high) next to each editor's name.
• Conflict avoidance. Do not assign a Field Editor who has co-authored with any listed author in the past three years, or who is affiliated with the same institution as the corresponding author. The system will warn but not block — the Chief Editor must make the final call.

Once assigned, the Field Editor receives an email notification and the manuscript appears in their “Assigned to me” queue. The Chief Editor retains read access to the manuscript throughout.

Selecting and managing reviewers is the core responsibility of the Field Editor. At least two independent reviewers must be invited for every manuscript.

Using the suggestion algorithm. The reviewer suggestion panel, powered by reviewer-assignment.service, generates a ranked list of candidates based on keyword overlap with the manuscript's abstract, citation network proximity, and review history within the journal. The list excludes anyone with a logged conflict of interest or an active COI declaration against the manuscript. Start here; it surfaces relevant candidates quickly and reduces the chance of overlooking a potential conflict.

Overriding the algorithm. You may invite reviewers not on the suggested list by searching the full reviewer database by name, institution, or keyword. Always verify that a manual invitee has no conflict before sending the invitation. Document the reason for any override in the internal notes field.

Diversity considerations. When possible, select reviewers who represent a spread of career stages (established researchers alongside post-doctoral reviewers) and institutional affiliations across different countries or regions. A homogeneous reviewer panel risks blind spots in the evaluation.

Invitations carry a standard 14-day review deadline. If a reviewer declines or does not respond within 5 days of the invitation, send a replacement invitation without waiting for the full deadline to lapse.

The decision letter is what authors experience as the voice of the journal. It must be factually accurate, clearly reasoned, and proportional in tone to the outcome.

Using built-in templates.The decision form provides templates for each decision type: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, and Reject. Templates pre-populate the standard phrasing and leave placeholder sections for reviewer-specific points. Use the template as a base and always personalise the opening paragraph to reflect the manuscript's actual content.

When to override. Override the template language when the manuscript has an unusual situation — for example, when accepting a paper that required three rounds of revision, or when rejecting a paper with genuinely strong elements that might succeed at a different venue. Do not override to soften a rejection to the point of ambiguity.

Structure of a good decision letter:

1. A one-paragraph summary of the manuscript's contribution and the decision outcome.
2. A consolidated list of reviewer concerns, grouped by theme (not reviewer number — reviewer identities must remain hidden to the author).
3. For revision decisions: specific, numbered action items with clear guidance on what constitutes a satisfactory response.
4. A closing statement with the revision deadline (for revise decisions) or a brief note on where the work might better fit (for rejections).

Tone calibration. Revise letters should be constructive — the author needs enough direction to revise successfully. Reject letters should be direct but not discouraging; avoid language that disparages the research question. Never include personal opinions about the authors or speculate about their motivations.

Some situations require escalation beyond the normal workflow. Use the 'Escalate' action on the manuscript detail page to notify the Chief Editor with a free-text reason.

Non-responsive reviewer. If a reviewer accepts an invitation but submits no review by the deadline, and replacement reviewers are also unavailable, escalate to the Chief Editor. The Chief Editor may extend the review window, make a decision on fewer than two reviews in exceptional cases, or desk-reject if the delay harms the author unfairly.

Ethics concern mid-review. If a reviewer or the Field Editor identifies suspected research misconduct, data fabrication, or undisclosed conflicts mid-review, stop the review process and escalate immediately. Do not communicate the concern to the author until the Chief Editor and Ethics Editor have been notified.

Author appeal.Authors may appeal a rejection on factual grounds within 30 days of the decision letter. Appeals are directed to the Chief Editor, not the Field Editor who handled the original review. If the original Field Editor was the Chief Editor, the appeal is reviewed by a second senior editor. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the reviewers' opinions are not grounds for reopening peer review.

YTUP follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Editors are expected to identify and act on ethics concerns; the workflow provides structured tools to support this.

When to invoke the Ethics Editor.Invoke the Ethics Editor (via the 'Flag for Ethics Review' action) whenever: the submission appears to involve research on human or animal subjects without adequate ethical approval documentation; a reviewer or the editor suspects data fabrication, image manipulation, or undisclosed dual submission; or an author complaint cites bias or unprofessional conduct by an editor or reviewer.

COI handling.All editors must declare conflicts of interest before accessing reviewer identities on any manuscript. A conflict includes co-authorship in the past three years, institutional affiliation with any listed author, financial relationships with the funding body named in the manuscript, and personal relationships that could compromise impartiality. Use the 'Declare COI' action; the system will reassign the manuscript automatically.

Retraction triggers. A published article should be considered for retraction if: post-publication peer commentary or third-party audit reveals fabricated or falsified data; the article was found to be a duplicate publication; or the corresponding author requests retraction due to a significant, uncorrectable error. Initiate a retraction investigation by contacting the Editor-in-Chief directly; do not use the standard workflow for this process.

When the Chief Editor confirms an Accept decision, the manuscript transitions automatically from IN_REVIEW to ACCEPTED and then to IN_PRODUCTION. The editorial team's active responsibilities end here, but a brief handoff checklist ensures nothing is lost.

• Confirm the final accepted manuscript file is attached to the submission record (not a revision draft).
• Verify that the author has submitted a final conflict-of-interest declaration and a data availability statement.
• Add any production notes for the proofreading team — for example, tables that require re-formatting, or figures supplied in non-print resolution.
• The production team (copyediting → typesetting → author proofs) operates independently from this point. Editors will receive a notification when author proofs are approved and the article is queued for publication.