Editorial Independence

Navigation: Resources > For Editors > Editorial Independence

Editorial independence is essential to trustworthy scholarly publishing. Editorial decisions should be based on the journal's scope, scholarly quality, methodological and evidential standards, ethical compliance, reviewer input where applicable, and the editor's academic judgment.

This page offers practical guidance for editors. It should be read together with CorayNova's formal editorial governance, peer review, competing interests, open access, advertising, complaints, and publication ethics policies.

· What Editorial Independence Means

Editorial independence means that editors are able to assess submissions and make or recommend editorial decisions without inappropriate influence from the publisher, owners, partners, sponsors, advertisers, institutions, authors, reviewers, funders, commercial interests, personal relationships, or public pressure.

Independence does not mean that editors operate without accountability. Editors are expected to follow journal policy, publisher policy, ethical standards, due process, confidentiality requirements, and documented decision procedures.

At CorayNova, editorial independence is paired with accountable editorial governance. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized responsible editor makes academic decisions under the journal's approved workflow. Publisher oversight supports policy compliance, ethical handling, process integrity, quality assurance, and platform continuity; it must not be used to alter academic decisions for commercial advantage.

· Decision Criteria

· Fit with the journal's Aims and Scope, readership, article types, and editorial priorities.

· Scholarly contribution, originality, clarity, and relevance to the field.

· Soundness of methods, evidence, analysis, interpretation, and reporting.

· Compliance with research ethics, publication ethics, authorship, competing interests, data, reporting, permissions, and prior dissemination requirements.

· Reviewer reports and editorial assessment, where peer review applies.

· The need to protect the integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record.

· Independence Safeguards

Risk Area

Safeguard for Editors

APCs or author fees

Editorial decisions must be separated from fee payment, waiver eligibility, discounts, invoicing, institutional agreements, or revenue considerations.

Ownership or institutional relationships

Submissions should be assessed under the same scholarly and ethical standards regardless of the author's institution, partner relationship, or organizational affiliation.

Advertising, sponsorship, or marketing

Promotional or business considerations must not determine acceptance, rejection, reviewer selection, correction, retraction, or appeal outcomes.

Personal or professional relationships

Editors should disclose conflicts and recuse themselves where a relationship, rivalry, collaboration, financial interest, or institutional interest could reasonably affect judgment.

Pressure from authors or reviewers

Editors should evaluate requests, complaints, and appeals through documented procedures rather than personal pressure, reputational claims, threats, or private persuasion.

Publisher oversight

Publisher oversight should support policy compliance, quality, transparency, ethics, and due process, not predetermine academic outcomes.

Editor conflicts of interest

If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest in a manuscript, special issue, appeal, complaint, or post-publication case, the matter should be handled by a non-conflicted Associate or Section Editor or by a non-conflicted Editorial Board member with appropriate expertise and authority.

· Handling Pressure or Conflict

Editors should not respond informally to attempts to influence editorial decisions outside the journal's normal workflow. If an author, reviewer, sponsor, institution, partner, or colleague seeks improper influence, the editor should document the matter and use the appropriate escalation route.

When an editor has a competing interest, another qualified editor should handle the submission, special issue, appeal, complaint, or post-publication matter. The reassignment should be recorded in the journal workflow or internal records.

Where a complaint or appeal raises a credible concern about process, conflict of interest, factual error, serious misunderstanding, or significant scholarly or ethical issue, CorayNova allows a secondary review where necessary by an editor, advisor, or publisher-designated person who was not involved in the original decision.

· Author Fees and Editorial Decisions

Where a journal charges an APC or other author fee, the fee must not influence whether a manuscript is sent for review, accepted, rejected, revised, corrected, or retracted. Waiver or discount requests should be handled through the journal's or publisher's stated process and should not be used as a reason to disadvantage a manuscript editorially.

APCs, waivers, discounts, invoice status, institutional agreements, advertising, sponsorship, or marketing arrangements must not influence peer review, editorial screening, revision requests, acceptance, rejection, correction, retraction, or appeal outcomes.