The Journal of Sustainable Decisions Intelligence and Optimization (JSDIO) designs editorial workflow process to ensure a rigorous, transparent, and efficient path from manuscript submission to final publication. Each submission undergoes a structured process that includes initial screening, desk evaluation, peer review, editorial decision-making, revisions, and production. The workflow involves collaboration of editor in chief, editors, reviewer and editorial staff, all working together to uphold the journal's standards of academic excellence and ethical publishing.

Responsibilities

Editor in Chief

1. Editorial Leadership: Defines the journal's academic direction and ensures all content aligns with the journal scope and standards. They make final decisions on manuscripts and oversee a fair, timely, and rigorous peer review process to maintain scholarly quality.
2. Team Management: Recruit and guide the editors, fosters collaboration, and supports the team in upholding editorial policies and ethical standards.
3. Quality Assurance: Safeguards the integrity of the journal by enforcing ethical publishing practices, such as plagiarism checks and conflict of interest disclosures.
4. Strategic Development: Analyze performance metrics and implementing strategies to boost visibility, impact, and indexing.
5. Community Engagement: Builds relationships with authors, reviewers, and readers; and promote the journal within scholarly networks to attract quality submissions and foster engagement.
6. Operational Oversight: Manage workflows and monitor submission trends and editorial efficiency to ensure smooth operations and a positive experience for contributors.

The Editors

1. Manuscript Assignment: Select and manage manuscripts within their subject area, ensuring alignment with journal scope.
2. Reviewer Selection: Identify and invite qualified reviewers to evaluate submissions.
3. Peer Review Oversight: Monitor the review process to ensure timely, fair, and constructive feedback.
4. Editorial Recommendations: Provide recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief based on desk evaluation and reviewer input.
5. Quality Assurance: Ensure manuscripts meet scholarly standards for clarity, originality, and relevance.

Reviewers

1. Manuscript Evaluation: Assess the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
2. Constructive Feedback: Provide clear, objective, and helpful comments to guide authors in improving their work.
3. Timely Review: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe to support efficient editorial decisions.
4. Confidentiality: Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.
5. Ethical Standards: Disclose any conflicts of interest and avoid bias in the review.
6. Recommendation: Offer a recommendation (accept, revise, reject) based on the manuscript's merit.

Editorial staff

1. Manuscript Processing: Manage the submission system, ensuring manuscripts are properly logged, tracked, and moved through each stage of review and production.
2. Author and Reviewer Communication: Serve as the primary contact for authors and reviewers, providing updates, answering queries, and ensuring smooth communication throughout the editorial process.
3. Peer Review Coordination: Support editors by sending reviewer invitations, monitoring deadlines, and following up to ensure timely completion of reviews.
4. Editorial Workflow Support: Assist the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors with administrative tasks, including preparing decision letters and organizing editorial board meetings.
5. Quality Control Checks: Perform initial checks on submissions for formatting, plagiarism, and compliance with journal policies before peer review begins.
6. Production Liaison: Ensure accepted manuscripts are correctly prepared for publication, including copyediting and proofing.
7. Data and Reporting: Maintain records of submissions, decisions, and reviewer activity, and generate reports to support editorial planning and performance tracking.
8. Website and System Maintenance: Update journal website content and troubleshoot issues with the manuscript submission system or editorial platform.

Process Overview

1. Initial Submission & Screening
   Upon submission, manuscripts are checked by the editorial staff for completeness, formatting, and compliance with journal policies. The Editor-in-Chief then conducts an initial screening to determine suitability for peer review.
2. Editorial Assignment
   Suitable manuscripts are assigned to an Editor with expertise in the subject area. The assigned Editor performs a preliminary assessment, selects qualified reviewers and oversees the review process. The Editor-in-Chief may also perform the desk evaluation if the manuscript aligns with his area of expertise.
3. Reviewer Invitation & Selection
   Upon the preliminary assessment, the qualified submission is entered a peer-review stage. Two or more independent reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication history, and absence of conflicts of interest.
4. Peer Review Process
   Reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, methodological rigor, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field. They provide detailed, constructive feedback and a recommendation (accept, revise – minor/major, or reject).
5. Editorial Decision
   Based on reviewer comments and their own evaluation, the Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. Authors are notified and provided with reviewer feedback.
6. Revision & Re-review (if applicable)
   Authors may be asked to revise their manuscript. Revised submissions may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation, depending on the extent of changes.
7. Appeals: Authors may appeal decisions based on procedural errors or significant misunderstandings.
8. Final Acceptance & Production
   Once accepted, the manuscript enters the production phase, including copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. The final version is published online and indexed.