Guidelines for Editors

As an esteemed editor for the WheatOmics Journal, you are part of a valued community, facilitating the dissemination of high-quality, peer-reviewed research. Your role as a scientific editor is pivotal, as the WheatOmics Journal depends on your experience and expertise to precisely assess and accept only the most outstanding research for publication. Furthermore, the WheatOmics Journal places significant trust in the members of its Editorial Board, viewing them as ambassadors who actively promote awareness of the journal and advocate for the submission of valuable research.

Handling a Manuscript: Once a manuscript is submitted, our editorial team conducts a thorough technical review to ensure all required information is provided before assigning it to an appropriate editor. Upon receiving an assignment or invitation to handle a manuscript, you will gain access to the manuscript file and submission details. If you determine that the manuscript does not meet the criteria for further review, you have the option to reject it without review.

If the manuscript qualifies for further review, you can proceed to invite reviewers. You may select reviewers already registered in our submission system, register specific reviewers, or add new suitable reviewers. Reviewers can be listed for immediate invitation or as "alternates" to be invited if primary reviewers are unavailable. We recommend listing as many additional reviewers as possible as "alternates" to expedite the review process. Once reviewers are listed, both our system and editorial office will handle the invitation process. If additional reviewer suggestions are required, our editorial office will notify you. Upon receiving all reviews, our editorial office will notify you for your review and decision-making process. Once your decision is submitted, the editorial office will notify the authors accordingly.

Guidelines for Editors

Maintain Objectivity: Editors must uphold impartiality when evaluating papers. If an editor finds themselves unable to assess a paper objectively, they should decline the invitation to serve as an editor. Additionally, if an editor has any professional, personal, or financial affiliations that could be perceived as a conflict of interest in handling a manuscript, they should decline the invitation to handle it. If such a conflict of interest arises after accessing the full manuscript materials, the editor should promptly recuse themselves and provide full disclosure to the editorial office."

Provide thoughtful and useful feedback: Editors are strongly encouraged and expected to provide feedback on manuscripts for which they have made a decision, regardless of whether the decision was made with or without reviews. Editors should always provide a clear and constructive reason for declining the paper, or clear instructions on how authors should revise their paper, especially if the reviews are not clear or are in disagreement. Editor should also identify any personal comments they see in reviews, alerting the editorial office to edit out comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts. If any language-related issues are unclear, editors should address them in their comments; however, editors and reviewers are not responsible for editing or correcting grammar or language in the manuscript. Comments should be focused solely on the scientific content; however, if English language editing is suggested, editors can guide authors to the English Language Editing Service.

Ensure Timelines: To expedite the review process, editors are kindly requested to make their decisions within a few days of receiving the manuscript or reviews.

Preserve anonymity: The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Editors should destroy all copies of the manuscript after completing the review process and not share the manuscript with any colleagues. Editors should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors’ specific permission.

Familiarize with Editorial Policies: Editors should be aware of the WheatOmics Journal policies regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing.

Criteria for Evaluation

Scope: The manuscript should fall within the scope of the journal.

Novelty: The information should not already exist in the literature. It should be innovative and answer an important question within the field. Ideally, it should also have the potential for implications outside of the field.

Methods: The approach should be clear, appropriate, rigorous, and current.

Conclusions: The evidence provided should justify the conclusions and the conclusions should be compelling enough to deserve rapid publication.