Journal of Sleep And Sleep Disorder Research · For editors
For Editors
How a manuscript is handled from arrival to decision, and the judgments an editor is asked to make along the way.
01 · The role
What an editor is responsible for
An editor holds a manuscript from the moment it is assigned until a decision is issued, and answers for that decision.
- Deciding whether the subject belongs in this journal, separately from how good the work is.
- Choosing reviewers whose expertise actually matches the manuscript.
- Reading the reviews critically rather than counting them.
- Reaching a decision on the approved criteria and explaining it to the authors.
- Protecting the confidentiality of unpublished work.
- Standing aside where a competing interest would make an independent judgment difficult.
- Escalating a concern about research or publication integrity rather than resolving it alone.
02 · Screening
Screening and scope
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
Scope is the first question and it is answered on its own. A manuscript is in scope when sleep, a sleep disorder or a circadian question is among the things it investigates — as an outcome, an exposure, a mechanism, a method or a service. The subjects and forms of work the journal covers are set out in the aims and scope.
Scope and quality are different questions
A manuscript can sit squarely in scope and still be too weak to publish, and a strong study can belong in another journal. Settle the first question before opening the second.
The journal covers sleep as a biological process as well as sleep disorders as clinical problems. Laboratory, model-system, methodological, behavioral, population and health-services work are all in scope on their own terms, and a manuscript is not expected to carry a clinical application to qualify.
03 · Reviewers
Choosing and briefing reviewers
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
- Matching expertise
- Choose reviewers whose own work touches the method and the subject in front of you. A manuscript spanning two fields — a dental appliance trial with a respiratory endpoint, a signal-processing method applied to a clinical cohort — usually needs a reviewer from each.
- Checking conflicts
- Establish before inviting that a prospective reviewer has no competing interest and no recent close working relationship with the authors.
- Blinding
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
- What to ask for
- Tell the reviewer what you need judged. A methods paper needs its procedure examined; a review needs its search and selection examined; a clinical study needs its design, analysis and the fit between evidence and claim examined.
- Confidentiality
- A manuscript under review is unpublished work belonging to its authors. Its content, and the fact of its submission, stay confidential.
04 · Deciding
Reading reviews and reaching a decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Reviews inform the decision rather than casting votes in it. Where two reviewers disagree, the editor weighs the reasoning rather than the count, and may invite a third opinion. A recommendation resting on taste rather than evidence carries less weight than one that identifies a specific problem in the work.
Write the decision so the authors can act on it: say which points are decisive, distinguish what must change from what would improve the paper, and pass on the reviewers’ reports.
Decisions and money are separate
Editorial decisions are independent of payment. An editor takes no part in invoicing and is not told what an author has paid or will pay.
Membership, an editorial role and any service purchased from the publisher leave the assessment of a manuscript unchanged.
05 · Conflicts
Competing interests and recusal
- Declaring
- An editor declares a competing interest in a manuscript to the editorial office as soon as it becomes apparent.
- Standing aside
- An editor with a competing interest stands aside from the manuscript, and it is reassigned to an editor without one.
- Editor-authored submissions
- An editor who is an author on a submission takes no part in its assessment. It is handled by an independent editor, and the editor-author has no access to the reviewer identities or to the decision as it is being made.
- Device and commercial studies
- A study evaluating a commercial device, application or service needs its author relationships with the supplier established before review begins, and a reviewer without a stake in that supplier.
- Records
- Recusals and reassignments are recorded by the editorial office.
06 · AI and integrity
Declared AI use and escalation
- AI in review
- Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
- AI by authors
- Authors disclose generative AI use in producing a manuscript, naming the tool and its role. Authorship is held by people.
- Suspected misconduct
- Concerns about plagiarism, data or image integrity, duplicate submission, undisclosed competing interests or authorship go to the editorial office, which investigates with the authors and, where appropriate, their institution.
- Correcting the record
- Where a published article needs correction, an expression of concern or retraction, the notice is published and linked to the original, which stays available. The full procedure is in the editorial policies.
- Appeals
- An appeal against a decision is considered by an editor who took no part in the original decision.
Related pages
Working with the journal
The pages below carry the requirements an editor applies and the guidance reviewers and authors are working from.