Editor Roles and Guidelines

The Editor-in-Chief provides overall scholarly and editorial leadership and oversees the integrity and effectiveness of the journal's editorial decision-making processes.

Principal responsibilities include:

• Providing strategic editorial direction consistent with the journal's aims and scope.
• Overseeing the implementation and periodic review of editorial and publication ethics policies.
• Maintaining appropriate standards of scholarly assessment and peer review.
• Ensuring that manuscript decisions are based on academic and scientific considerations rather than commercial interests.
• Appointing or recommending appropriately qualified editors and Editorial Board members.
• Supporting fair and constructive communication among authors, reviewers and editors.
• Addressing significant editorial disagreements, publication ethics concerns and matters requiring senior editorial judgment.
• Overseeing appropriate post-publication action, including corrections, expressions of concern and retractions.
• Promoting editorial accountability, scholarly integrity and professional conduct.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the journal's editorial standards but may delegate manuscript assessment and editorial decisions to appropriately qualified editors.

Such delegation does not diminish the requirement for independence, fairness or compliance with journal policies.

Editorial Board members contribute disciplinary expertise, professional judgment and scholarly guidance to the development and editorial activities of The GMS.

Depending on their appointment, expertise and availability, responsibilities may include:

• Advising on the journal's academic direction, scope and emerging areas of scholarly interest.
• Evaluating manuscripts or advising on their suitability for further editorial consideration.
• Recommending appropriately qualified independent reviewers where requested.
• Participating in editorial assessment or peer-review oversight when assigned.
• Providing constructive advice concerning manuscript quality, research integrity and publication ethics.
• Supporting the development and periodic improvement of journal policies and practices.
• Contributing scholarly perspectives on developments in their areas of expertise.
• Encouraging appropriate scholarly engagement and awareness of the journal through professional networks.

Editorial Board membership does not require an editor to submit a fixed number of manuscripts to the journal.

Any scholarly contribution submitted by an editor is subject to the journal's applicable editorial and peer-review requirements.

Editorial decisions must reflect the scholarly quality, relevance and integrity of submitted work.

Editors should exercise independent professional judgment and avoid inappropriate influence from authors, institutions, sponsors, commercial interests or other interested parties.

The journal's financial arrangements, publication charges, waiver decisions and optional author services must remain separate from editorial assessment and acceptance decisions.

Where a manuscript requires expertise beyond an editor's field, the editor should seek appropriate specialist input rather than make unsupported technical judgments.

Editors involved in manuscript handling are responsible for maintaining a fair and academically appropriate peer-review process.

The GMS ordinarily follows a double-blind peer-review process and typically seeks evaluations from two to three independent reviewers, where appropriate to the manuscript.

Editors should select reviewers according to relevant expertise, independence and suitability for the subject matter.

Reviewer recommendations should be considered carefully, but editorial decisions are not determined solely by numerical reviewer recommendations or a simple majority.

Editors may request additional assessment where reviews are incomplete, contradictory or insufficient to support a responsible decision.

Further details are provided in the Peer Review Policy .

Editors must disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional or personal interests that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

Where a significant conflict exists, the editor should not participate in the relevant manuscript's editorial assessment or publication decision.

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board members or other journal editors must be handled by an appropriately qualified editor who is independent of the submission.

Editors submitting their own manuscripts must not control reviewer selection, confidential peer-review correspondence or final editorial decisions concerning their work.

Editorial position or association with The GMS does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or preferential scholarly assessment.

Editors must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts, peer-review reports, editorial correspondence and other non-public information obtained through their roles.

Confidential materials should be accessed or shared only where reasonably necessary for authorized editorial activities.

Editors must not use unpublished research findings, data or ideas for personal, professional or commercial advantage.

Confidential manuscript content should not be uploaded to external AI systems or other third-party platforms without appropriate authorization and adequate confidentiality safeguards.

AI-assisted tools must not replace independent editorial judgment, ethical responsibility or human accountability.

Editors should remain attentive to concerns involving plagiarism, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unreliable findings, ethical approval, informed consent or other publication integrity matters.

Where credible concerns arise, editors should follow the journal's applicable procedures and seek appropriate clarification or additional assessment.

Editors should not automatically presume misconduct from an error, disagreement or allegation.

Matters requiring institutional investigation may be referred to an appropriate institution or competent authority, while the journal retains responsibility for its own editorial decisions and published record.

Editorial appointments should reflect relevant expertise, professional standing, academic or clinical experience and the ability to contribute responsibly to the journal.

Editors are expected to communicate professionally, respect differing scholarly perspectives and perform accepted editorial responsibilities with reasonable diligence.

The nature and extent of an editor's participation may vary according to their role, availability and the journal's editorial needs.

The journal may periodically review editorial appointments and responsibilities to ensure that its governance remains appropriate and effective.

Where significant concerns arise about conduct, conflicts of interest or the performance of editorial responsibilities, the journal may review the appointment and take proportionate action.

Editors may contribute to the journal's development by identifying emerging research topics, recommending scholarly initiatives, encouraging professional engagement and supporting academic collaboration.

Such activities should be conducted responsibly and without creating expectations of guaranteed publication or favorable editorial treatment.

Editorial involvement in scholarly outreach, institutional engagement or other journal initiatives must remain distinct from independent manuscript evaluation.

Editorial responsibility continues after an article has been published.

Editors should assist in the fair assessment of credible post-publication concerns, including errors, ethical questions and challenges to the reliability of published material.

Depending on the circumstances, appropriate editorial action may include clarification, correction, an expression of concern or retraction.

Editors should cooperate with relevant journal procedures and support transparent maintenance of the scholarly record.

Complaints involving an editor's own conduct or decisions should be assessed by an appropriately uninvolved editorial representative or independent person where necessary.