Navigation: Resources > For Editors > Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions should be clear, reasoned, fair, and consistent with the journal's scope, policies, peer review model, and scholarly standards. Editors are responsible for weighing reviewer comments, editorial assessment, ethical requirements, and the needs of the scholarly record.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the responsible editor or decision-making structure defined by the journal.

· Common Decision Types

Decision	Typical Meaning	Good Practice for Editors
Accept	The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to any final production, metadata, licensing, proof, or administrative checks.	Use only when scholarly, ethical, file, and policy requirements have been satisfied.
Minor Revision	The manuscript may be publishable after limited changes that do not usually require substantial new analysis or restructuring.	State required revisions clearly and distinguish required changes from optional suggestions.
Major Revision	The manuscript may need substantial clarification, additional analysis, revised interpretation, stronger evidence, reporting improvements, or major structural work.	Explain that revision does not guarantee acceptance and may require further review.
Reject	The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal after assessment, peer review, or policy checks.	Give a respectful decision reason and avoid unnecessary criticism.
Reject and Resubmit	The current submission cannot proceed, but a substantially redesigned manuscript may be considered as a new or separate submission if the journal allows this route.	Use only when the journal workflow supports it and make clear that any new submission will be assessed independently.
Withdrawn or closed	The submission is closed because the author withdraws, fails to respond after reasonable requests, or the journal cannot proceed under policy requirements.	Document the reason and keep records consistent with policy.

 

· Revision Timeframes and Submission Closure

CorayNova does not set a single publisher-level revision deadline for all journals or manuscripts. Revision deadlines may be set by the individual journal, article type, decision letter, or editorial workflow.

If authors do not submit a revision within the stated timeframe or do not respond after reasonable editorial communication, the journal may close the submission as withdrawn, inactive, or otherwise closed according to the journal workflow. The possibility of closure should be communicated in the decision letter or reminder where applicable.

An invitation to revise is not a promise of acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be accepted, rejected, returned for further revision, sent for further review, or closed according to the journal's editorial assessment.

· Using Reviewer Reports

Editors should read reviewer reports critically. Reports may identify important strengths, weaknesses, ethical issues, unclear reporting, missing evidence, or alternative interpretations, but editors should not simply count reviewer recommendations.

When reviewer reports conflict, editors may make a reasoned decision, request revision focused on the disputed issues, invite an additional reviewer, seek specialist input, or decline the manuscript if the concerns cannot be resolved responsibly.

· Decision Letters

·  State the decision clearly.

·  Explain the main editorial reasons for the decision where appropriate.

·  Identify required revisions separately from optional suggestions.

·  Use respectful, professional, and specific language.

·  Avoid disclosing confidential reviewer identities unless the journal's model allows it.

·  Do not promise future acceptance after revision.

·  Include next steps, file requirements, response letter expectations, and relevant deadlines where the journal uses them.

· Editorial Discretion and Consistency

Editors may disagree with reviewer recommendations, but they should be able to explain why. A decision that differs from reviewer recommendations should be based on scholarly assessment, journal scope, policy requirements, reviewer report quality, ethical concerns, or the need for additional expertise.

Similar cases should be handled consistently unless there is a documented reason for different treatment. Consistency does not require identical outcomes; it requires comparable application of policy, evidence, and editorial reasoning.

· Appeals and Complaints

Authors may disagree with a decision, but disagreement alone does not establish that an editorial decision was wrong. Appeals should normally identify a procedural error, factual error, conflict of interest, serious misunderstanding, or significant scholarly or ethical issue that may have affected the outcome.

Editors should handle appeals and complaints through the journal's or publisher's formal route, not through private negotiation.

CorayNova accepts appeals for consideration when they identify a possible procedural error, factual error, conflict of interest, serious misunderstanding, or significant scholarly or ethical issue that may have affected the decision. A general disagreement with editorial judgment, reviewer criticism, or the journal's assessment is not by itself a sufficient basis for overturning a decision.