For Editors

Ethical Duties and Responsibilities of the Editor

The editor and field editors of PedPer should hold the following ethical responsibilities that are based on the guides "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published as open Access by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These can be accessed on the link below: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf 

• While fulfilling editorial duties and responsibilities, adopting balanced and objective behaviors; and approaching the authors fairly without discriminating anyone on the grounds of her/his gender, religious belief, political standpoint, ethnic background or nationality.
• Evaluating the manuscripts sent to PedPer on the basis of the “manuscript submission guidelines”, the significance of the study and its originality, and if she/he decides to reject a manuscript after the editorial evaluation, inform the authors the rationale behind this decision clearly and objectively. Informing authors and allocating the necessary time for amendment, if she/he decides that a manuscript needs a thorough revision as a result of several typesetting,, punctuation, writing, and layout errors as well as some problems related to the referencing system.
• Taking the necessary cautions and assessing the demands from both sides, if there is a conflict of interests.
• Assessing and evaluating the works submitted to PedPer on the basis of their content, without providing privilege to any of them. 
• Ensuring that all manuscripts go through a blind peer-reviewing process and the authors do not know anything about the reviewers nor do the reviewers have any information related to the authors.
• Handling sponsored research or studies on special topics in the way that all other manuscripts go through.
• Supporting the authors’ freedom of expression.
• If the authors demand information about their manuscripts, carefully informing them about the processes and state of their manuscripts without breaching the rules and regulations related to blind peer-reviewing processes. 
• Continuously updating the manuscript template presenting and explaining what have been expected from the authors.
• Ensuring that all the published papers include the dates of sending and acceptance.
• Endeavoring to improve the quality of the journal and contribute its development.
• If there is a complaint about the breaching an ethical principle, taking the necessary action in accordance with PedPer's relevant policies and procedures. Providing the authors the necessary opportunities to answer the complaints addressed to their manuscript or to defend themselves; and imposing the relevant sanctions fairly and objectively.
• Inviting the reviewers to express that they do not have any conflict of interest with the author(s) of a manuscript before starting to review it.
• Renewing and expanding the number of reviewers while keeping their areas of expertise or specialities in mind.
• Excluding those reviewers who do not fulfil their duties on time or provide feedback and comments being impolite and lacking of quality.
• Rejecting a manuscript which is not appropriate to PedPer’s aims and scope.
• Finding and assigning new members for the Editorial Board, who have the potentials to contribute its development.
• Informing the new members of the Editorial Board in relation with PedPer's manuscript submission guide; explaining them about what is expected from a member of the Editorial Board; and informing them about their responsibilities.
• Reviewing the critics/criticism about the journal and answering them, if it is seen necessary.