Guide for Editors

Last updated: 28 August 2025

This Guide for Editors applies to Editors-in-Chief, managing editors, associate editors, section editors, academic editors, guest editors, editorial-board members, and other individuals performing editorial duties for journals published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP.

Editors are responsible for protecting the quality, fairness, confidentiality, independence, transparency, and integrity of the editorial and peer-review process. They must act in the interests of the scholarly record, the journal’s readers, and the research community rather than in their own personal, institutional, financial, or professional interests.

All journals published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP operate under the Diamond Open Access model. Authors are not charged submission fees, article processing charges, publication fees, page charges, or mandatory open-access fees. Published articles are made freely available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0).

Research manuscripts are evaluated through a single-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are informed of the authors’ names and affiliations, while reviewer identities normally remain confidential.

1. Purpose, Scope, and Editorial Structure

The editorial team must ensure that every manuscript is handled consistently with the journal’s aims and scope, peer-review policy, publication-ethics requirements, author guidelines, copyright policy, privacy policy, and generative AI policy.

The principal editorial roles are as follows:

Editor-in-Chief: Has overall responsibility for the scholarly content, editorial direction, peer-review quality, ethical standards, and final editorial decisions of the journal.
Managing Editor: Coordinates administrative and production workflows, monitors manuscript progress, communicates with authors and reviewers, and supports implementation of editorial policies.
Associate, Section, or Academic Editor: Manages assigned manuscripts, selects appropriate reviewers, evaluates reports, communicates revision requirements, and recommends or makes decisions within the authority granted by the Editor-in-Chief.
Guest Editor: Manages articles within an approved special issue under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief or a designated journal editor.
Editorial-Board Member: Advises the journal, supports peer review, promotes ethical and scholarly standards, and contributes expertise within the journal’s field.

The Editor-in-Chief remains responsible for the content of the journal, including regular issues, special issues, supplements, conference-related collections, invited articles, editorials, and other published material.

Editors should accept only assignments that fall within their competence and available capacity. An editor who lacks the necessary subject expertise, has insufficient time, or cannot handle a manuscript impartially should inform the Editor-in-Chief or editorial office promptly so that the manuscript can be reassigned.

Editors must familiarize themselves with all publisher and journal policies before handling manuscripts. Where an unusual situation is not expressly addressed, the editor should consult the Editor-in-Chief and publisher rather than making an unsupported procedural decision.

2. Core Duties and Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must be based on the manuscript’s:

relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
originality and scholarly contribution;
clarity of the research question or objective;
appropriateness and transparency of the methodology;
accuracy and completeness of the analysis;
validity of the findings and conclusions;
ethical and legal compliance;
quality of reporting;
importance to the journal’s readership; and
overall contribution to knowledge or professional practice.

Decisions must not be influenced by an author’s nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, geographical location, professional status, personal relationship, or ability to pay.

Because TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP operates a Diamond Open Access model, no editorial decision may be connected to author payments, institutional wealth, commercial sponsorship, advertising considerations, subscription income, or expected financial return.

Editors must preserve editorial independence. Journal owners, publisher employees, sponsors, partners, advertisers, institutions, or external organizations must not interfere with decisions concerning:

whether a manuscript is sent for review;
which reviewers are invited;
the interpretation of reviewer reports;
whether revision is required;
whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected;
whether a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is issued; or
how legitimate scholarly criticism is handled.

The publisher may establish administrative policies, production standards, legal requirements, and strategic objectives, but final decisions concerning the scholarly suitability of individual manuscripts must remain with appropriately qualified editors.

Editors should work efficiently and avoid unnecessary delay. Manuscripts that are clearly unsuitable should be declined promptly so that authors may submit their work elsewhere. Manuscripts selected for peer review should be advanced through reviewer invitation, review, decision, revision, and production without avoidable inactivity.

Editors should respond professionally to reasonable author enquiries concerning manuscript status. They must not make misleading promises regarding acceptance, publication dates, indexing, citation performance, or editorial outcomes.

Editorial decisions must not be made to increase journal metrics. Editors must not require authors to add irrelevant citations to the journal, the editor’s own publications, reviewer publications, or any other source for the purpose of manipulating citation indicators.

3. Conflicts of Interest and Recusal

Editors must identify and disclose any financial, personal, academic, institutional, professional, political, or intellectual interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

An editor should normally recuse themselves when:

the manuscript was written by the editor, a family member, close personal associate, current collaborator, recent collaborator, supervisor, student, or close professional colleague;
the editor and an author work within the same institution, department, research group, or closely connected organization;
the editor has a direct financial or commercial interest in the subject or outcome;
the editor has an active personal, academic, legal, or professional dispute with an author;
the editor has previously advised substantially on the manuscript or research project;
the editor is involved in directly competing research that could be affected by access to the unpublished work;
the editor has publicly taken a position that prevents an impartial evaluation of the manuscript; or
another reasonable observer could question the independence of the editor’s decision.

When recusal is required, the editor must not access unnecessary manuscript information, select reviewers, communicate the decision, participate in internal discussion, or influence the handling of the submission. The manuscript must be reassigned to an independent editor.

Submissions authored by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the editorial board, publisher employees, or guest editors may be considered, but they must be handled through an independent process. The submitting editor or board member must have no access to reviewer identities, confidential discussion, or the editorial decision beyond the information normally provided to any author.

Editors must declare relevant interests when they join the journal and update their declarations whenever circumstances change. Failure to disclose a serious conflict may result in removal from the manuscript, withdrawal of editorial responsibilities, or further action by the publisher.

Editors must also assess reviewer conflicts. A reviewer should not normally be selected when the reviewer:

works at the same institution as an author;
has a close personal or professional relationship with an author;
has recently collaborated or published with an author;
has supervised, been supervised by, or closely mentored an author;
has a financial interest in the findings;
is involved in a direct professional dispute or close competition with an author;
has participated substantially in the research or manuscript; or
cannot provide an objective and independent assessment.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but editors must independently verify their identity, expertise, affiliation, contact information, publication record, and absence of relevant conflicts. Authors’ suggestions must not determine the reviewer selection.

4. Initial Assessment and Manuscript Assignment

Every submission should undergo an initial editorial and technical assessment before external peer review. The purpose of initial assessment is to determine whether the manuscript is complete, suitable for the journal, ethically acceptable, and sufficiently credible to justify reviewer time.

The initial assessment should consider:

fit with the journal’s aims and scope;
appropriateness of the article type;
originality and significance;
clarity and quality of presentation;
adequacy of the research question and methodology;
completeness of the manuscript and required files;
authorship and contributor information;
funding and competing-interest declarations;
ethical approval, informed consent, and trial-registration information where applicable;
data-availability and materials-availability statements;
generative AI disclosures;
permissions for third-party material;
possible plagiarism, duplicate submission, redundant publication, or inappropriate text recycling;
possible image, data, citation, or authorship manipulation;
compliance with relevant reporting guidelines; and
general compliance with the Guide for Authors.

A manuscript may be declined without external review when it:

falls outside the journal’s scope;
does not present a sufficient scholarly contribution;
contains fundamental methodological weaknesses that cannot reasonably be corrected through revision;
does not comply with essential ethical or legal requirements;
contains clear evidence of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or other serious misconduct;
is substantially incomplete or unintelligible;
duplicates material already published without adequate justification;
is promotional, defamatory, or otherwise unsuitable for scholarly publication; or
does not meet the journal’s minimum editorial standards.

A desk-rejection decision should identify the principal reason clearly and professionally. Editors are not required to provide a complete peer-review report for a manuscript that is unsuitable for external review.

Language limitations alone should not be used to reject a scientifically sound manuscript when the scholarly content can be evaluated and the language can reasonably be corrected. However, a manuscript may be returned when language problems prevent reliable evaluation of the methods, results, or conclusions.

Similarity-checking software may be used as a screening aid, but a similarity percentage must not be treated as conclusive evidence of plagiarism. Editors must examine the source, extent, context, attribution, and scholarly significance of any textual overlap.

Before assigning a manuscript, the editor should confirm that they have appropriate subject expertise and no disqualifying conflict. Manuscripts requiring specialized statistical, methodological, linguistic, legal, ethical, or technical assessment may be referred to an additional qualified adviser.

Editors should check whether in-text citations and references generally comply with APA style, 7th edition. The initial assessment should confirm that:

the author–date citation system is used consistently;
every cited work appears in the reference list;
every reference-list entry is cited in the manuscript;
references appear to be relevant and genuine;
journal, book, report, dataset, and webpage details are sufficiently complete;
DOIs are provided in URL form where available; and
references have not been added solely to influence citation metrics.

Editors are not expected to verify every bibliographic detail personally during initial screening, but apparent fabricated, irrelevant, retracted, inaccessible, or inaccurate references must be investigated.

5. Single-Blind Peer Review and Reviewer Management

Research manuscripts considered suitable for external evaluation normally undergo review by at least two qualified and independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when reports conflict, specialized expertise is required, or significant methodological or ethical questions remain unresolved.

Editorials, letters, book reviews, invited commentaries, corrections, and similar content may undergo editorial review instead of full external review, depending on the article type and journal policy. The evaluation process used for such content must remain appropriate, independent, and transparent.

Under the journal’s single-blind peer-review model:

reviewers receive the names and affiliations of the authors;
reviewer identities are not normally disclosed to the authors;
review reports are normally transmitted without information identifying the reviewer; and
editors and journal staff must protect reviewer confidentiality.

A reviewer’s identity may be disclosed only when the reviewer has expressly agreed, disclosure is required by law, or disclosure is necessary for a properly authorized research-integrity investigation. The Editor-in-Chief and publisher should be consulted before confidentiality is exceptionally limited.

Reviewers should be selected on the basis of:

subject-matter expertise;
methodological competence;
relevant scholarly experience;
independence from the authors and research;
absence of disqualifying conflicts;
ability to provide a fair and constructive assessment;
reliability and timeliness; and
verified professional identity.

Where reasonably possible, editors should seek diversity in reviewer geography, institutional background, career stage, methodology, and scholarly perspective, while ensuring that expertise and independence remain the primary criteria.

Editors must take reasonable steps to verify reviewer identities. Warning signs may include:

unverifiable affiliations;
non-institutional email addresses presented without explanation;
contact details supplied exclusively by an author;
unusual or incomplete publication records;
multiple reviewer accounts connected to the same person or contact details;
extremely rapid and uncritical reports;
repeated identical language across reports;
requests to use a particular substitute reviewer without justification; or
patterns suggesting fabricated identities or peer-review manipulation.

A reviewer invitation should state the manuscript title, abstract or sufficient subject information, expected review period, confidentiality requirements, conflict-of-interest requirements, and a link to the journal’s reviewer guidance.

Reviewers should be asked to confirm whether they have a conflict before accepting the assignment. Acceptance of an invitation does not remove the reviewer’s continuing duty to disclose a conflict that becomes apparent later.

Editors should ask reviewers to evaluate:

originality and contribution;
importance and relevance;
clarity of objectives or hypotheses;
appropriateness of the study design and methodology;
quality and transparency of the analysis;
accuracy of the interpretation;
support for the conclusions;
ethical and reporting compliance;
quality of tables, figures, data, and supplementary material;
appropriateness and completeness of the references; and
changes required before the manuscript could be published.

Editors should evaluate the quality of each review rather than counting recommendations mechanically. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor and Editor-in-Chief remain responsible for the final decision.

A useful review should be specific, evidence-based, respectful, relevant, and proportionate. Editors should not forward comments containing abusive, discriminatory, threatening, defamatory, irrelevant, or personally insulting language.

An editor may remove inappropriate language, personal data, reviewer identity clues, or irrelevant confidential comments before forwarding a report. The editor should not alter the scientific meaning of a reviewer’s assessment without a valid reason.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer’s publications, the journal’s publications, or other sources unless the requested citations are directly relevant and academically justified. Editors should disregard and, where necessary, challenge coercive citation requests.

When reviewer reports conflict substantially, the editor should assess the reasoning and evidence in each report. The editor may:

make a decision based on the strongest and most relevant arguments;
seek clarification from a reviewer;
invite an additional independent reviewer;
consult a statistical or methodological adviser; or
request a focused revision addressing the disputed issue.

Editors should avoid repeated review rounds when the remaining issues can reasonably be assessed editorially. Reviewer fatigue and unnecessary delay should be minimized.

6. Editorial Decisions, Revisions, and Author Communication

Editorial decisions should be clear, timely, consistent, and supported by the manuscript’s scholarly merits, reviewer reports, ethical requirements, and journal policies.

Available decisions may include:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication subject only to routine production procedures or minor non-substantive corrections.
Minor revision: The manuscript requires limited changes that do not alter its central design, analysis, or conclusions substantially.
Major revision: Substantial changes, additional analysis, clarification, or restructuring are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject and invite resubmission: A fundamentally revised manuscript may be considered as a new submission, without any guarantee of review or acceptance.
Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal or contains problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

A revision invitation is not a commitment to accept the manuscript. Editors must avoid wording that creates an unjustified expectation of acceptance.

Decision letters should:

state the decision clearly;
identify the most important reasons for the decision;
distinguish mandatory changes from optional suggestions;
include relevant reviewer comments;
resolve or explain contradictory reviewer requests where possible;
specify which ethical, methodological, reporting, or formatting issues must be addressed;
provide revision instructions; and
remain respectful and professional.

Editors should not forward reviewer reports without reading them. The editor must determine whether the comments are relevant, understandable, appropriate, and consistent with the decision.

When inviting revision, editors should require:

a clean revised manuscript;
a marked or tracked-changes version where appropriate;
a detailed point-by-point response;
updated tables, figures, data, declarations, and supplementary files where necessary; and
a clear explanation for any reviewer request that the authors did not follow.

Authors may disagree with a reviewer when they provide a reasoned and evidence-based response. Editors should evaluate the quality of the authors’ explanation rather than requiring automatic compliance with every reviewer suggestion.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when substantial scientific issues require further assessment. Minor changes, formatting corrections, or clearly resolved matters may be evaluated directly by the editor.

Editors should not introduce new major requirements late in the review process unless the need becomes apparent from the revision, new evidence, an integrity concern, or an issue essential to the reliability of the article.

Acceptance should occur only after the editor is satisfied that:

the manuscript makes an adequate scholarly contribution;
the methods and analysis are appropriate;
the conclusions are supported by the evidence;
material reviewer concerns have been addressed;
ethical and legal requirements have been satisfied;
authorship and disclosures are complete;
data, code, figures, tables, and references are sufficiently reliable;
APA reference requirements have been addressed;
necessary permissions have been obtained; and
the article is suitable for publication as part of the permanent scholarly record.

An acceptance decision should not normally be reversed because of a later change in editorial preference. Acceptance may be reconsidered when serious ethical, legal, authorship, data-integrity, peer-review, plagiarism, or reliability concerns emerge before publication.

7. Research Ethics, Integrity, and Misconduct

Editors must take reasonable steps to identify and respond to suspected:

plagiarism;
fabrication or falsification of data;
inappropriate image manipulation;
duplicate or redundant publication;
simultaneous submission;
citation manipulation;
peer-review manipulation;
paper-mill activity;
fabricated or unverifiable references;
undisclosed competing interests;
authorship disputes or ghost authorship;
false ethical approval or consent statements;
unlawful use of confidential or personal information;
misleading generative AI use;
copyright infringement; and
other conduct that may compromise the reliability of the scholarly record.

Editors must distinguish between honest error, poor reporting, methodological disagreement, negligence, questionable research practice, and deliberate misconduct. Concerns should be assessed impartially and without premature accusation.

When a credible concern arises before publication, the editor should normally:

document the concern and supporting evidence;
pause the editorial decision where necessary;
consult the Editor-in-Chief or publisher’s designated ethics representative;
contact the corresponding author for a clear explanation;
request relevant original data, unmodified images, code, approvals, consent records, contributor information, or other documentation;
consider responses from all affected authors or parties;
seek independent expert advice where appropriate; and
take a proportionate and documented decision.

Editors should not conduct extensive institutional misconduct investigations beyond the journal’s competence. Universities, research institutions, ethics committees, funders, regulators, or other competent bodies may need to investigate the underlying conduct. The journal remains responsible for assessing the reliability and publication status of the manuscript or article.

When contacting an institution or authority, editors should share only information reasonably necessary for the investigation and should consult the Editor-in-Chief or publisher before disclosing confidential editorial material.

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal data, human tissue, clinical information, or vulnerable groups must include appropriate ethics and consent information. Editors may request:

the name of the approving ethics committee;
the approval or reference number;
the date and scope of approval;
the informed-consent procedure;
consent for publication of identifiable information;
the legal or institutional basis for an exemption; or
additional documentation where the declaration appears incomplete or inconsistent.

Research involving animals must include appropriate ethical approval and sufficient information concerning welfare, care, procedures, and efforts to minimize suffering.

Editors should assess whether the authors followed a suitable reporting guideline for the study design. Relevant checklists and flow diagrams may be requested when they improve completeness and transparency.

Data and statistical concerns may require independent review. Editors may ask for raw or appropriately de-identified data, analysis scripts, protocols, registrations, or statistical clarification when necessary to evaluate the reliability of the work.

Editors must treat retracted literature appropriately. A retracted article should not be relied upon as valid evidence unless the discussion specifically concerns the retraction, the history of the work, or another justified context. Authors should be asked to explain and correctly identify any citation to retracted material.

8. Confidentiality, Privacy, Data Security, and AI

Submitted manuscripts are confidential scholarly communications. Editors must not disclose manuscript content, author information, reviewer information, editorial discussion, unpublished findings, or decision records to anyone who is not authorized to participate in the editorial process.

Access should be limited to individuals who require the information for:

editorial assessment;
peer review;
technical or integrity screening;
statistical or methodological consultation;
copyediting, typesetting, or production;
legal or ethical review; or
secure administration of the publishing system.

Editors must not use unpublished ideas, data, methods, code, figures, or other information obtained through manuscript handling for personal research, professional advantage, commercial benefit, competitive purposes, or the benefit of another person.

Manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be handled through authorized journal systems and accounts. Editors should not unnecessarily download, duplicate, print, or retain confidential files on unsecured devices or personal storage services.

Editors must protect:

author and reviewer contact information;
reviewer identities;
confidential declarations;
participant or patient information;
research data shared for editorial assessment;
allegations of misconduct;
appeals and complaints; and
internal editorial discussion.

Where confidentiality must be limited to investigate suspected fraud, misconduct, legal violations, or serious risks, the disclosure should be authorized, proportionate, documented, and restricted to relevant recipients.

Editors must comply with the publisher’s Privacy Policy and applicable data-protection requirements. Personal information should not be included in decision letters, reviewer reports, or internal notes unless it is necessary for the editorial purpose.

Editors must follow the publisher’s Generative AI Policies.

Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, unpublished data, author information, editorial correspondence, or other confidential material to a public or external generative AI system when confidentiality, security, data retention, model training, and lawful processing cannot be assured.

Generative AI must not make final decisions concerning:

desk rejection;
reviewer selection;
acceptance or rejection;
ethical compliance;
authorship disputes;
misconduct findings;
corrections;
expressions of concern; or
retractions.

Automated tools may support technical checks, similarity screening, reference checking, language assessment, integrity screening, or workflow management when authorized by the publisher. Their output must be evaluated by a qualified human editor and must not be treated as conclusive evidence by itself.

Editors remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, appropriateness, and confidentiality of all communications or decisions prepared with AI assistance.

9. Appeals, Complaints, and Post-Publication Actions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a material factual error, procedural failure, overlooked evidence, reviewer conflict, or serious misunderstanding affected the outcome.

An appeal should not be accepted merely because the authors disagree with the reviewers or editor. The authors should identify the specific issue and provide a reasoned explanation supported by evidence.

Where practicable, an appeal should be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict.

The appeal editor may:

uphold the original decision;
request clarification from the original editor or reviewers;
obtain an additional independent review;
invite a revised manuscript;
reverse the decision where a material error occurred; or
refer the matter to the publisher when it concerns policy, ethics, or procedure.

Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration, external review, or acceptance. Repeated appeals presenting no substantial new information may be closed after a final reasoned response.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, delay, confidentiality, discrimination, conflicts, reviewer behaviour, website information, or journal procedure should be handled respectfully and documented appropriately.

A complaint about the Editor-in-Chief should be referred to an independent representative of TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP. An editor must not make the final determination of a complaint concerning their own conduct.

Publication does not end the journal’s responsibility for an article. Editors must consider credible post-publication concerns and, where appropriate, request explanations, data, documentation, or institutional findings.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of a post-publication issue, the journal may publish:

a minor update that does not affect the scholarly meaning;
a formal correction;
an author-name or affiliation correction;
an addendum;
an expression of concern;
a retraction;
a withdrawal notice for material not yet formally published; or
a removal notice in exceptional legal, privacy, or safety circumstances.

A correction is appropriate when an error affects the article’s accuracy, interpretation, attribution, metadata, or accessibility but does not invalidate the principal findings.

An expression of concern may be appropriate when serious questions remain unresolved and an investigation is incomplete, delayed, inconclusive, or unavailable.

Retraction may be appropriate when findings are unreliable because of error or misconduct, the article contains substantial plagiarism, the work was published elsewhere without proper justification, the research was unethical, peer review was manipulated, authorship was seriously misrepresented, or another major violation makes the article unsuitable to remain part of the scholarly record without a retraction notice.

A retracted article should normally remain accessible and be clearly marked as retracted. The retraction notice should identify the article, explain the reason sufficiently, state who is retracting it, and be linked to and from the article.

Article removal should be reserved for exceptional cases, such as a binding legal requirement, serious privacy violation, unlawful content, or an immediate and substantial safety risk. A removal notice should remain whenever legally and technically possible.

Editors should correct the record transparently and should not remove, hide, or silently replace published content merely to avoid criticism or reputational harm.

10. Special Issues, Editorial Content, and Board Governance

Special issues, thematic collections, supplements, and conference-related issues must follow the same standards of originality, ethics, peer review, editorial independence, and publication quality as regular journal content.

Before approving a special issue, the Editor-in-Chief should assess:

the relevance and scholarly value of the proposed topic;
the qualifications and publication record of proposed guest editors;
possible conflicts of interest;
the proposed call for papers;
the expected number and type of submissions;
the proposed editorial and peer-review process;
the feasibility of the timeline; and
any institutional, conference, society, or commercial involvement.

Guest editors must receive clear written instructions and remain subject to oversight by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated journal editor.

Guest editors must not:

guarantee publication to contributors;
bypass ordinary ethical or peer-review requirements;
select reviewers with undisclosed conflicts;
make decisions on their own submissions;
use the special issue to promote a narrow citation network;
accept articles outside the approved scope without authorization; or
allow a conference organizer, sponsor, institution, or external party to control editorial decisions.

A manuscript submitted by a guest editor must be handled by an independent journal editor. The guest editor must not participate in reviewer selection, access reviewer identities, influence the decision, or view confidential discussion.

The Editor-in-Chief may reject individual submissions, replace a guest editor, suspend a special issue, or cancel the collection when quality, ethical, operational, or integrity standards are not being maintained.

Special-issue articles should be clearly identified as part of the relevant collection. They must not be presented as independently peer reviewed when they did not receive the journal’s required evaluation.

Editorials, commentaries, obituaries, letters, news items, and publisher announcements should be clearly identified by article type. Where such content is not externally peer reviewed, it should not be represented as research that completed the journal’s standard peer-review process.

Editors should ensure that opinions are distinguished from verified findings. Material concerning individuals or organizations must be factually checked and written with appropriate regard for fairness, privacy, defamation, and the opportunity to respond where necessary.

Editorial-board appointments should be based on appropriate expertise, professional standing, ethical reliability, diversity, and willingness to contribute. Board membership must not be offered or continued solely for prestige or promotional purposes.

Editorial-board members are expected to:

support the journal’s aims and ethical standards;
provide peer review or reviewer recommendations when appropriate;
declare conflicts of interest;
maintain confidentiality;
advise on journal development and subject coverage;
identify emerging issues in the field;
correct inaccurate affiliation or profile information promptly; and
avoid misleading claims about the journal’s indexing, metrics, or reputation.

Editorial appointments should be reviewed periodically. An editor or board member may be removed for persistent inactivity, repeated missed assignments, confidentiality violations, undisclosed conflicts, abusive conduct, false credentials, manipulation of peer review, interference with editorial independence, or other conduct inconsistent with the journal’s standards.

11. Quality Assurance, Editorial Records, and Contact

Editors should maintain a clear and auditable record of manuscript handling. Relevant records may include:

initial screening notes;
editor assignments and recusals;
reviewer invitations and responses;
conflict-of-interest declarations;
review reports;
decision letters;
revised manuscripts and author responses;
ethical and integrity correspondence;
appeals and complaints;
acceptance approvals;
correction or retraction assessments; and
other records necessary to explain the editorial history.

Editorial records must be accurate, professional, relevant, and securely maintained. Internal notes should not contain insulting, speculative, discriminatory, or unnecessary personal comments.

Editors should use the journal’s official manuscript-management system or authorized communication channels wherever possible. Material decisions made through meetings or external correspondence should be documented in the manuscript record.

Before approving an accepted manuscript for production, the editor should confirm that:

the final title and author list are accurate;
all authors have approved the final scholarly content;
author contributions are stated appropriately;
funding and competing interests are disclosed;
ethics and consent information is complete;
data-availability information is included;
generative AI use is declared where applicable;
figures and tables are complete and appropriately cited;
third-party permissions have been supplied;
APA citations and references have been reviewed;
the DOI and metadata can be prepared accurately; and
no unresolved scientific or ethical concern remains.

Editors should cooperate with copyeditors and production staff but should not permit production changes that alter the scientific meaning without author and editorial review.

Proofs are intended primarily to correct production errors. Substantial post-acceptance changes to data, analysis, conclusions, authorship, or declarations must be referred to the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief.

The publisher and Editor-in-Chief should monitor editorial performance, including:

time to initial assessment;
reviewer response and completion patterns;
quality of reviewer reports;
time to editorial decision;
frequency and causes of avoidable delay;
appeals and complaints;
corrections and retractions;
possible peer-review manipulation;
editor and reviewer conflicts;
special-issue performance; and
consistency in applying journal policies.

Performance information should be used to improve editorial quality rather than pressure editors to accept more articles, shorten review improperly, or compromise research-integrity checks.

Editors should participate in appropriate training concerning peer review, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, research reporting, data protection, generative AI, misconduct investigations, corrections, and retractions.

Serious concerns that cannot be resolved by the handling editor should be referred to the Editor-in-Chief. Matters involving the Editor-in-Chief, legal risk, data protection, institutional contact, major misconduct, or publisher policy should be referred to an appropriate independent representative of TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP.

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP
Allee 1
45143 Essen
Germany

Editorial enquiries may also be submitted through the publisher’s official Contact page or the editorial office of the relevant journal.

On this page