Editorial Responsibilities

Editors assess scope, select reviewers, and make recommendations based on scientific rigor and clinical relevance.

Decision Standards

Decisions consider methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to epilepsy care. Clear communication with authors is expected.

Timelines

Editors should aim to keep reviews on schedule and communicate promptly with reviewers and authors.

Scope Screening

Check that submissions align with epilepsy care scope and meet basic ethical requirements before peer review.

Reviewer Selection

Choose reviewers with relevant clinical or laboratory expertise, ensuring balanced perspectives and avoidance of conflicts.

Decision Letters

Provide clear, respectful decision letters that summarize key issues and highlight required revisions.

Ethics Oversight

Escalate suspected misconduct or ethical concerns to the editorial office for guidance and formal review.

Confidentiality

Maintain confidentiality of submissions and reviewer identities. Do not share manuscripts outside the review process.

Communication Standards

Editors should communicate clearly and respectfully with authors and reviewers. Timely updates improve trust and transparency.

Quality Checks

Verify that ethical approvals, consent statements, and data availability information are present before acceptance.

Confirm seizure classification consistency and medication safety reporting before final acceptance whenever possible.

Conflict Management

Editors must identify and manage conflicts of interest, including financial ties, competing publications, or close collaborations. When a conflict is possible, assign an independent editor or seek guidance from the editorial office. Transparent handling protects author trust and reinforces the journal's reputation for objective, patient-centered evaluation. Document the decision in the editorial system to maintain an audit trail.

Revision Oversight

For major revisions, set clear expectations on methodological corrections, data presentation, and statistical transparency. Encourage authors to respond to each reviewer comment in a structured response letter, and verify that critical issues are resolved before acceptance. If revisions introduce new data, ensure ethical approvals and data availability statements are updated accordingly. Flag unresolved clinical safety concerns for re-review by specialists.