Editor Guidelines

  • Home
  • Editor Guidelines

Guidelines for Editors

At Wavejo, our editors—who are authorities in their domains—are in charge of the journal's content and the peer review procedure. Their duties include managing the peer review process for manuscripts, offering suggestions about the approval or rejection of work, and drawing submissions of the highest calibre. Based on the COPE code of conduct and best practices for journal editors, the following rules are intended for editors.

Choosing reviewers

  • Editors are responsible for making sure that suitable reviewers—that is, people who can evaluate the work and don't have any conflicting interests—are chosen for submissions.

  • Editors should preferably select two or more reviewers (three is the default on Manuscript Central) and make sure that not all of the reviewers are suggested by the paper's authors unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

  • Reviewers who frequently provide rude, subpar, or delayed evaluations ought to be fired by editors.

  • To find possible new reviewers, editors should explore a variety of sources (not simply personal relationships) (e.g. author suggestions, and bibliographic databases).

Review process

  • Editors should deal with any papers assigned to them in a timely fashion to aim for an initial decision within 3 months.

  • Editors should endeavour to handle all papers assigned to them, irrespective of the paper’s subject area, and the return of a paper to a Section Editor for reassignment should only be exceptional. Section Editors try to assign papers appropriately but also to balance loads on individual editors across the Editorial Board; sometimes the assignment of a paper whose scope is outside that of the assigned editor is unavoidable.

  • Editors should provide written feedback to authors as regards any decision made even if that decision follows obviously from reviewers’ comments, in which case one or two sentences summarising the reviewers’ comments is appropriate.

  • Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described peer review process (see Review and Appeals process).

  • Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

  • Editors should monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard.

  • Editors should encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation).

  • The originality of submissions and be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. 


  • Editors’ recommendation to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the peer reviews and their view on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.

  • Editors can recommend to immediately reject a paper if the material does not meet the standard of The Computer Journal.

  • Editors should not reverse a decision to accept a submission unless serious problems are identified with the submission.

  • New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.

  • Editors should flag any case of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship with the editor-in-chief or the publisher.

  • The Computer Journal uses the online submission system Manuscript Central for submissions and peer review. If you need any assistance with the system, please contact the editorial office.