Publication quality depends on the editors' judgments that have a direct impact on the published research as well as the researchers. In this section, we provide guidelines for managing the editorial office of each journal under the Luminous Insights umbrella to provide a unique experience for its community.

Editorial and board management

Each Luminous Insights journal has an editorial board, where each journal depends on a group of editors and editorial staff. The Editorial Management Office develops good relationships with the chief editors, associate editors, and section editors, and assists them with editorial tasks. The editorial office follows up changes to the editorial staff and updates the editorial lists through the journal's website. The editorial office also assists in directing new editors or members of the editorial staff who need help on how the journal operates.


Editorial Board Structure

The editorial board consists of a group of members in different fields, working as one team to make the journal a success, some of whom are considered potential reviewers of submitted manuscripts. They can advise in formulating the strategy and future goals of the journal, as well as adding credibility to it. Membership on the editorial board is an honor, and Luminus Insights celebrates great experience in this field. The editorial board consists of the editor-in-chief, associate editors, section editors, and members of the editorial board. Editorial board members meet periodically to assess the health of the journal, discuss overall goals, and guiding new and existing individuals about their responsibilities. Meetings are as needed or as per the specific needs of the journal, and attendance at the meeting may vary from one journal to another and from one meeting to another.

The editor-in-chief acts as a spokesperson for the journal and answers inquiries as required. He is the lead editor and ultimate responsibility for academic content. The editor-in-chief is responsible for reviewing submitted manuscripts and making the decision to accept them for review, as is the case for receiving reviews from reviewers. Thus, it is his responsibility to ensure a continuous and timely flow of manuscripts. The editor-in-chief is responsible for directing the general strategy of the journal in coordination with the editorial office, the publisher, and the editorial management.

The editor-in-chief may delegate some decisions to one or more associate editors. The exact role of the associate editor varies from journal to journal, depending on the size of the journal and the breadth of its scope. The Associate Editor - within the limits of the delegation - is responsible for making decisions on manuscripts allocated by topic or country of origin.

Section editors review specific manuscripts such as books and summary reports, and the editor in chief can delegate them to make final decisions on the manuscripts allotted to them. But the editor-in-chief has the right to review their decisions.

How to attract authors to your journal?

There are many challenges facing authors, as editors, that you must be able to recognize. Ensure that authors want their work to be published quickly, make it known as widely as possible, and finally comply with funders and government policies. You have to understand these needs and decide how you will respond to those challenges. As an editor, you know the challenges authors face, and what they demand from the journals in which they publish. You should market your journal in areas you are not familiar with through your networks of contacts and the expertise of local experts. Take advantage of the personal or institutional connections of your editorial team, participate in local, international, and regional conferences and promote the online version of your journal.

Submission Requirements

Each journal's editorial office checks manuscripts as they are submitted to determine their readiness for peer review. Ethical requirements are checked as well as the format is reviewed according to the requirements of the journal, this task saves a lot of time later. This process ensures a certain level of consistency between submissions and obtaining manuscripts that are clear and available to reviewers. At this point, the focus is on the journal's priorities, submission requirements, and the various options for submission. The editorial office also ensures that the researcher (s) makes several disclosures when submitting. Ensure that all individuals listed as authors have approved the submitted copy, that their work is original and not under consideration by any other journal, that authors have permission to copy any previously published material, and may also request disclosure of each author's contribution to the manuscript. Other disclosures such as confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and other ethical standards are required. These disclosures provide an opportunity to deal with any violations that may arise subsequently.

Find reviewers

One of the main functions of editors is to find reviewers who are ready to review promptly. Luminous Insights uses multiple strategies to find reviewers, and editors are provided with various tools to gain appropriate expertise in specialized areas. Reviewers' information is accessed through the editorial boards that operate the journals, and we also depend on recommended reviewers or information on previous reviewers in journal databases. We usually use keywords to identify reviewers by experience and manuscript topics.


Following up Reviewers

We follow up on reviewers to make sure reviews are sent on time. We use different types of reminders - manual or automatic - at different times to increase the likelihood that reviewers will respond. We use manual reminders in certain circumstances, which can help get a helpful response if reviewers ignore automatic reminders. In any case, we recommend using a combination of automatic and manual reminders, as this can sometimes result in a reply and review afterward, make sure you use the reminders tactfully and professionally. Keep in mind that there are reasons for the reviewer's response to be delayed, the email used may be wrong, or the reviewer may need to extend the review time as necessary. The reviewer should feel no obligation to complete the review, so do not send many automatic reminders, replace them with manual reminders. The reviewer responds if the message is personal.

The following form can be used if the reviewer does not respond. This form is not standardized, you can add your personal touch:

Dear reviewer

We trust this email finds you well

“We understand that you may be very busy at the moment. However, we are relying on the report you have agreed to submit to evaluate the manuscript " The manuscript’s title.” We would be grateful if you let us know if you are now unable to review the paper. If this is the case, are you able to recommend someone who might be willing to act as a reviewer? I'm sure you know that we need to provide the author with the decision as soon as possible."

Thanks and regards



Communicate with authors

The editorial office communicates orally or in writing with the authors in order to ensure continuity of support. Communication with authors starts from the date of submission until the research publication. Communication also includes informing authors about the results of their manuscript submissions and ensuring that authors maintain high respect for the journal regardless of the outcome of their submission. It is recommended to personalize responses and use regular, polite, and prompt messages. Rejecting the paper does not mean that they will not return later. Keep a friendly face, they may return to send or read the journal, cite articles, or recommend the journal to colleagues.

Authors are contacted for completeness of their data, for example, completion of a license agreement through author services. Make sure they are aware of author registration guidelines, editorial policies regarding ethics, article retraction, copyright, other author benefits, and other features that may be added in the future.

The author has the right to appeal the decisions made, as there may be bad reviews or misconduct by the reviewer. This feature helps reassure authors that a rigorous process is being followed and also draws attention to the fact that weak reviewers are treated professionally.

Peer Review

Managing peer review is also a significant task of the editorial staff. Peer review is the basis for protecting the quality and integrity of scientific research. Editors decide which papers to publish based on the reviewers' evaluations, their objectivity, the accuracy and originality of their arguments, and the design of the evaluation process. The peer-review process can be broadly summarized in 10 steps, found (here) Peer review process. (See peer review of Luminous Insight, for reviewers

Reviewers Scoresheets

Luminous Insights uses the reviewer scoresheet as a template for organizing reviewers' answers. This is a preferred method of ensuring that all major issues in the manuscript are addressed. A method should be followed to customize the results sheet to get the most useful reviews. The reviewer scoresheet includes options to recommend acceptance or rejection, then the reviewer does not need to explain the reasons. If revision of the manuscript is requested, the reasons must be stated. The editor should explain cases where there is ambiguity, the author may understand the major revision as a rejection, the editor must draw the line between major revision and rejection, and chances of success of the manuscript can be highlighted after the major revision, it is likely to be worthy of publication.

Each Luminous Insights journal provides guidance for reviewers on how to complete a reviewer scoresheet and should provide advice on what reviewers should focus on. This type of guidance is added to the reviewer's results sheet or review center. The reviewer guidelines are available (link) and are also sent to the new reviewers. It is also useful to direct reviewers to the authors' guidelines.

Reviewer's Evaluation form

Luminous Insights journals use  a special metric in which reviewer evaluations are graded. The evaluation form covers important criteria such as validity, language, and originality. The form also contains criteria for each journal and issues, manuscript length or shortness, word count, etc. The criteria also include the structure of the manuscript, the number of tables and figures, and whether they are few, many, or appropriate.

A non-standard criterion has a priority metric that is used to differentiate high-quality articles. A numerical or qualitative scale is used (high priority, low priority, etc. More detail is probably more useful.

The form also includes an assessment of the paper's contribution to the field or its relationship to contemporary issues in the journal's field, as well as its originality and relevance.  

How reviews are processed?

When getting feedback from reviewers, there are some suggested practices for dealing with the reviews.

Editors should check the revised version of the submitted manuscript with the same details as the original. Keep in mind that the new revision is a review, not a new submission, and track it accordingly. You should also check how the author(s) respond to reviewer comments so that the changes are clear to both editors and reviewers. Authors can be instructed to use Track Changes in a Word document or highlighted text, ensuring that authors do not identify themselves in response to reviewer comments, especially for revised submissions to double-blind journals.

Manuscript return policy

Editors can return the manuscript to the author if there are problems with style or format. It is then returned to the author for formatting or style modification before being sent for review. A manuscript may be returned to the author if it is unsuitable for publication, regardless of its need for alteration. There may be problems with the formatting of references, and a lack of anonymity for the manuscript. Figures and tables may not reflect the content of the manuscript. Or the author(s) exceeded the word limit. Or the manuscript can be returned after the English language check. The manuscript may also be withdrawn at the request of the author(s).

When the manuscript is returned, it must include an explanation of why the manuscript was returned. This should indicate whether the author is expected to edit and resubmit (rather than the author believes it has been rejected). It is useful to refer to the authors' guidelines (with a link if possible).

Before going back to the author, make sure of a few things, the manuscript may be applicable. For the authors, the focus should be on the balance between consistency with policy and deterrence. For example, there may be things that can be allowed and modified later in the process such as references or minor issues. The author may be given the opportunity to respond to his or her inquiries, or there are some issues that the journal can address, such as types of editorial files.

Finally, make sure the authors' guidelines are clear, revised, and up-to-date, and clearly explain the journal requirements.

Protecting information

The information collected and stored is planned and appropriate policies are established for its use. When collecting information, check the accuracy of its association with the person concerned, as well as contact details and other information such as email and surname, and ensure the integrity of entries, duplicate records, and expired data.

All data relating to the names of users, reviewers, and potential reviewers, authors, contact details, or any data stored on the electronic editing system and used for various purposes are protected by data-protection law. All data and personal information relating to individuals that can be accessed directly or indirectly are subject to data protection legislation.

The individual's personal information is stored securely and is not disclosed to unauthorized parties, and the data or details are not transferred to any third party or used for marketing purposes without the prior consent of the person concerned.

production and publishing

Editors deal with manuscripts from the date of their submission or even before they are submitted until they are accepted for publication and after publication. The editor's responsibility also includes contacting the production office to follow up on manuscript proofreading and typesetting as this process is standardized and requires interaction and overlap with the editorial and production office. The production manager is responsible for each manuscript and, therefore, handles the editing and typesetting of each manuscript and ensures the consistent quality of published articles. Before that, the production manager checks authors and editors as needed and relays corrections. It also manages the lunching process, reviews and verifies revised evidence. He also ensures the consistent quality of published articles.

The editorial office must ensure that details of the copyright, distribution rights, and research use agreement for their journal are included in the editorial guidelines or editorial policy, as well as they are in the authors' guidelines. Authors must sign or send proof of their agreement to the license agreement prior to publication.

A possible error in the editorial office is the author's failure to request more details and information before publishing the manuscript. It is important to verify that the production manager has all information relevant to the manuscript such as material type and/or table of contents, supplements, and operation orders, as well as the Referrals. When accepting the manuscript, the editorial office must verify that the manuscript's files are of editable format for numbers, images, and font. Be sure to include author information.

Publishing special issues

Journals publish special issues or special sections on specialized or trending topics, in conjunction with an event or conference, or focus on unusual problems. Sources of ideas for new special issues may be from editorial board meetings, people from the field, or invited through a call for proposals. These issues are read more and are cited more often. The editorial office must carefully manage special preparations and ensure that the articles submitted are not copies of backlog. The invitation for special issues should clearly state that the papers will be subject to peer review and may be rejected. Papers are met by specific deadlines, so dispatches and paper processing speed must be monitored.

The editorial office collaborates with marketers, production managers, and publishers to track special issues and collaborates with one or more guest editors. If this happens, the editorial office will explain the standards the journal uses, the strict review policy, and the ethical behavior of the guest editor. A set of instructions can be written and sent to the guest editor on call, or a demo of the presentation system can be made and any relevant evidence attached. The guest editor should be informed of deadlines for issuing special editions and the speed of paper processing, as they may not be familiar with the publication or have unrealistic expectations about the speed of paper processing.

For auditors, it is necessary to check the database and the availability of the required number of auditors. Ensure that existing auditors can and are happy with review process requirements.

Regarding supplementary, they may be published in a separate issue or a regular issue. However, supplementation is less popular in Luminous Insights journals. However, there may be commercial or non-commercial summaries and supplements that will be available to subscribers and are likely to have a wider scope. Supplements, summaries, appendices, and supplement articles are subject to editor-in-chief approval and to peer review, copyright, and the same ethical standards as regular articles. Luminous Insights deals with supplemental articles, and the editor must receive the full list of supplemental article contents to see which articles must be accepted.

Publication Ethics Guidelines

Luminous Insights believes that ethical publishing leads to a better scientific community in which everyone is valued and everyone is accountable for the work they do. The strength of a journal is directly related to the strength of its ethics. As the editor, you are the guardian of the journal's ethical practices. You should be familiar with the industry's most comprehensive publication ethics guidelines.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/) sets out a set of core, recommended practices that apply to all those involved in the publication, journal teams, publishers, and institutions. COPE advises editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct as well as individual cases of research misconduct.

Dealing with plagiarism and libel


Unauthorized use of other published or unpublished ideas, whether part or all of the paper and their inclusion in the paper is considered plagiarism. The author must quote or paraphrase citations, and if illustrations are used or a significant portion of another article is taken, the editor must ensure that the author has permission to do so. The author's guidelines and editorial policies include a clear statement that works submitted to journals are original works and a statement by the author(s) condemning plagiarism and taking someone else's work or ideas.

Luminous Insights uses iThenticate plagiarism detection software where all manuscripts are quickly scanned and any matching identified. Each journal must inform authors that they are using plagiarism detection software. When any plagiarism or interference arises, the editor-in-chief must analyze the findings to determine whether or not they are legitimate. Some matching is a legitimate matter such as bibliography, some sections of the methodology may be similar but do not constitute plagiarism, and these methods may be similar to the procedure itself. Editors are advised to consult with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowchart.


Exposition of other individuals or groups on an unscientific or legal basis is libeling. It is difficult for editors to detect libel automatically. While reviewers who have read the entire manuscript can do so, they are the best sources for spotting potential libel. Definitions of legal penalties for libel may vary between countries or regions. If any doubts arise about whether an article is defamatory, then the publisher or legal representative should be contacted.

Measuring and monitoring the journal performance

Editors should build a system for measuring the performance of their journals. Editors are obligated to consider metrics in order to monitor the overall health of journals.

There are several metrics to consider, the most important of which is the classic metric, which is the impact factor rating or citation. It also measures how users interact with articles by measuring usage statistics. There are also social media stats, and finally, there are alternative metrics which are a whole host of other methods for judging article quality. However, there is no single or standardized scale that gives an unequivocal assessment of the journal quality.

But in general, the following metrics can be considered for evaluating the quality of a journal:

Impact measures

The impact factor is the journal's indexing. Examples of criteria used:

Alternate metrics

Alternative measures focus on different aspects of human behavior. There are many examples of alternative metrics such as social media (tweets, likes, blogs). There's also Mendeley reading, usage metrics, and citations. In any case, success in achieving acceptable levels on any scale cannot be considered a sign of quality, since each scale has its own complexities. These metrics provide insight into the overall impact of more than just scientific interest. They can also provide insight into future citations, and can ultimately be relied upon to track attention to unconventional research outputs. On the other hand, it cannot keep track of what everyone is doing online, since the picture is almost incomplete, and does not indicate the quality of the search. For more information on alternative metrics see (http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/).

Measuring the usage

Many criteria are used to measure journal usage, such as common web usage metrics, which help in getting instant data about an article and can be of great value to journal editors. There is a set of standards and codes of practice for organizations that report usage data (https://www.projectcounter.org/) or called an online resource usage account.

Editors need to consider other factors that affect usage and download rate. For example, geographic differences, such as usage and download metrics, can be affected by the difference in Internet access worldwide. Journals targeting countries with low levels of Internet access can report the use of these "low usage" countries.

Editors should look at data sources, as not all journals are compatible with the project counter.

Finally, consider the use of self-citation and promotion as well as differentiating between real users who access research and are used by robots and data miners. Be aware of fake and fraudulent measurement services that offer journal indexing for a fee.