For Editor

1. Purpose

This guideline sets out the roles, responsibilities, manuscript-handling procedures, and editorial decision-making principles for the editors of HCMCOU Journal of Science - Advances in Computational Structures. It is intended to ensure that every manuscript is processed in a fair, objective, transparent, consistent, and independent manner, in accordance with the Journal's editorial policies and internationally recognized best practices in scholarly publishing.

Editors are responsible for fully complying with the principles, recommendations, and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the recommendations of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, together with the regulations and policies issued by the Journal.

2. Roles and Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • ensuring editorial independence and upholding the academic integrity of the Journal;
  • evaluating manuscripts solely on academic merit, scientific quality, and relevance to the scope of the Journal;
  • organizing and overseeing the editorial and peer-review process according to the principles of fairness, confidentiality, and timeliness;
  • selecting reviewers with appropriate expertise who are independent and free of conflicts of interest;
  • identifying, assessing, and handling matters related to research integrity, publication ethics, and conflicts of interest;
  • making editorial recommendations or decisions based on the peer-review report combined with the editor's own independent academic assessment;
  • ensuring that all manuscript-handling activities are fully recorded in the Journal's OJS manuscript management system;
  • safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record both before and after an article is published.

3. Editorial Process

All manuscripts are processed according to the unified editorial workflow below.

3.1. Desk Review (Round 1)

Responsible unit: Editorial Secretariat

Target processing time: Within 05 working days of receiving the manuscript.

The Editorial Secretariat conducts an initial check to determine whether the submission package is complete and eligible to proceed to academic evaluation.

The check covers:

  • the submission package;
  • technical form and formatting;
  • metadata in the OJS system;
  • the content of the Author's disclosure and unified declaration;
  • similarity/plagiarism check.

The outcome of the desk review may be:

  • proceed to Round 2;
  • request the author to supplement/revise technical items before further review;
  • reject submissions that do not meet the minimum requirements.

3.2. Academic Desk Review (Round 2)

Responsible unit: Handling Editor or Section Editor

Target processing time: Within 05 working days after completion of Round 1.

At this stage, the editor assesses whether the manuscript is ready to proceed to peer review.

The evaluation criteria include:

  • fit with the aims, scope, and article type;
  • initial assessment of academic quality;
  • assessment of novelty and value;
  • compliance with research and publication ethics.

The outcome of the evaluation may be:

  • proceed to peer review;
  • request revisions before proceeding to peer review;
  • reject at the desk-review stage.

3.3. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Responsible unit: Handling Editor

Target processing time: Within 03 working days.

Typically, each manuscript is invited to at least 02 independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Reviewer selection is based on the following criteria:

  • expertise relevant to the research topic;
  • research capability and track record;
  • absence of conflicts of interest;
  • diversity of institutional affiliation;
  • diversity of country or region (where appropriate);
  • quality and timeliness of review in prior collaborations.

3.4. Peer Review (Round 1)

Responsible unit: Reviewer

Invitation response time: Within 07 working days

Review time: Within 28 working days

The Journal applies a double-anonymous peer review model.

Editors track review progress, ensure the confidentiality of the process, and assess the quality of the review forms.

Where reviewer opinions differ significantly or provide insufficient grounds for a decision, the editor may invite an additional independent reviewer.

3.5. Post-Review Editorial Assessment (Round 1)

Responsible unit: Handling Editor

Target processing time: Within 05 working days of receiving all review reports.

The editor reviews:

  • the content and quality of the review forms;
  • the academic value of the manuscript;
  • the quality of the research methodology;
  • any ethical issues (if applicable);
  • content requiring revision or clarification.

Reviewer comments are an important reference basis but are not binding on the editorial decision.

Decisions may include:

  • accept;
  • accept after minor revisions;
  • require major revisions (subject to a further round of review);
  • reject.

3.6. Author Revision

The author is required to submit:

  • the revised manuscript;
  • a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer comments;
  • supplementary materials (if needed).

The revision deadline depends on the extent of the revisions requested and will be stated in the Editorial Office's decision letter.

3.7. Peer Review (Round 2)

Responsible unit: Reviewer

Invitation response time: Within 07 working days

Target review time: Within 14 working days

The second round of review focuses on assessing whether the author has fully addressed the reviewer comments and the editor's requirements.

Reviewers need not re-evaluate the entire manuscript unless new content or significant changes have been introduced.

Additional rounds of review are conducted only when truly necessary.

Decisions may include:

  • accept;
  • accept after minor revisions;
  • require major revisions (subject to a further round of review);
  • reject.

3.8. Final Editorial Decision

Responsible unit: Handling Editor, Editor-in-Chief

Target processing time: Within 05 working days after the completion of review.

The final decision is made on the basis of:

  • the review forms;
  • the revised manuscript;
  • the author's response letter;
  • the editor's independent academic assessment;
  • compliance with research and publication ethics requirements;
  • the Journal's quality standards.

The Editor-in-Chief bears ultimate responsibility for all publication decisions.

3.9. Production Editing and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed through the following steps:

  • content editing;
  • language copyediting (as needed);
  • typesetting and layout;
  • author review of proofs;
  • metadata verification;
  • DOI registration;
  • online publication according to the Journal's schedule.

4. Principles of Editorial Decision-Making

Every editorial decision must be based on:

  • the originality of the research;
  • scientific quality;
  • the reliability of the research methodology;
  • the value of the contribution to scientific knowledge;
  • compliance with research and publication ethics;
  • fit with the Journal's aims and scope.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

  • nationality;
  • gender;
  • ethnicity;
  • religion;
  • political views;
  • institutional affiliation;
  • commercial interests or other non-academic factors.

5. Publication Ethics

Editors are responsible for identifying, assessing, and appropriately handling cases related to:

  • plagiarism or improper duplication;
  • duplicate publication;
  • data fabrication or falsification;
  • improper image manipulation;
  • authorship disputes;
  • peer review fraud;
  • citation manipulation;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • inappropriate use of AI.

Suspected violations will be handled in accordance with the Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy and the Ethics Flowcharts and Editorial Procedures of the Journal.

6. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Editors must not use generative AI systems to:

  • replace academic evaluation or editorial decision-making;
  • upload confidential manuscripts or documents to public AI platforms;
  • disclose confidential information about authors or reviewers.

AI tools may only be used to support administrative or editorial tasks to an appropriate extent, in accordance with the Journal's regulations, and must always be subject to direct human oversight, per the AI Governance Policy of the Journal.

7. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Editors must:

  • maintain absolute confidentiality throughout the manuscript-handling process;
  • proactively disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest;
  • decline to handle a manuscript when objectivity cannot be assured;
  • protect reviewer identities in accordance with the Journal's double-anonymous peer review policy.

Requirements for the disclosure and handling of conflicts of interest are set out in detail in the Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy of the Journal.

8. Estimated Manuscript Processing Timeline (Unit: working days)

Stage Minimum Maximum Target time
Desk Review (Round 1) ≤ 03 days ≤ 07 days ≤ 05 days
Academic Desk Review (Round 2) ≤ 03 days ≤ 07 days ≤ 05 days
Reviewer selection ≤ 03 days ≤ 07 days ≤ 03 days
Response to review invitation ≤ 03 days ≤ 09 days ≤ 07 days
Peer review (Round 1) ≤ 14 days ≤ 45 days ≤ 28 days
Post-review editorial assessment ≤ 03 days ≤ 07 days ≤ 05 days
Author revision ≤ 07 days ≤ 30 days Typically 07-30 days (depending on the extent of revisions)
Response to review invitation ≤ 03 days ≤ 09 days ≤ 07 days
Peer review (Round 2) ≤ 07 days ≤ 28 days ≤ 14 days
Final editorial decision ≤ 03 days ≤ 07 days ≤ 05 days
Production approval ≤ 07 days ≤ 20 days ≤ 10 days
Publication approval ≤ 07 days ≤ 20 days ≤ 10 days
Production editing and online publication — — According to the Journal's publication schedule

Note: depending on the outcome of the Round 2 review, the process may take longer.

9. Related Policies

Editors must study and fully comply with the policies of the Journal, including:

10. Contact Information

For any questions regarding the editorial process, publication ethics, or manuscript handling, please contact the Editorial Secretariat through the official contact channels published on the Journal's website.