Decision Guidelines
Editorial decisions at SIARE (Society of Integrated Academic Research and Education) are guided by academic merit, ethical integrity, and alignment with the scope and standards of the respective proceedings.
These guidelines support editors in making consistent, fair, and well-documented decisions throughout the peer-review process while maintaining transparency and scholarly quality.
Merit-Based Decisions
Decisions are based on quality, rigor, and contribution.
Reviewer-Informed
Reviewer input supports but does not dictate decisions.
Consistency
Apply uniform standards across all submissions.
Transparency
Provide clear reasoning for all editorial outcomes.
1. Principles of Editorial Decision-Making
Editorial decisions must be independent, objective, and based solely on the scholarly merit of the submission.
- Evaluate originality, rigor, and relevance
- Avoid bias related to authors, institutions, or affiliations
- Ensure alignment with proceedings scope
- Consider ethical and reporting standards
2. Role of Reviewer Reports
Reviewer reports provide critical input, but the final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.
- Assess consistency and quality of reviewer feedback
- Identify conflicting reviewer opinions
- Consider methodological and domain-specific insights
- Apply editorial judgment beyond reviewer recommendations
3. Decision Categories
Editors may assign one of the following decisions:
- Accept – manuscript meets all standards with minimal or no changes
- Minor Revision – requires limited improvements
- Major Revision – requires substantial changes
- Reject with Resubmission Option – significant rework required
- Reject – unsuitable for publication
4. Criteria for Evaluation
Editors should evaluate manuscripts based on:
- Originality and novelty of contribution
- Technical and methodological rigor
- Clarity of presentation and structure
- Relevance to the conference or proceedings scope
- Quality of data, analysis, and interpretation
- Adequacy of references and literature engagement
5. Handling Conflicting Reviews
When reviewer opinions differ significantly, editors should take a balanced approach.
- Review the reasoning behind each report
- Identify key areas of disagreement
- Seek additional reviewer input if needed
- Apply editorial judgment to resolve differences
6. Revision Decisions
When revisions are requested, editors should provide clear and actionable guidance.
- Summarize key reviewer concerns
- Highlight mandatory vs optional revisions
- Ensure feedback is constructive and specific
- Define expected scope of revision
7. Ethical Considerations in Decisions
Editorial decisions must consider compliance with ethical standards.
- Plagiarism and similarity concerns
- Data integrity and reproducibility
- Authorship and contribution transparency
- Conflict of interest disclosure
8. Decision Communication
Editors must communicate decisions clearly and professionally.
- Provide a structured decision summary
- Include reviewer comments where applicable
- Avoid ambiguous or unclear instructions
- Maintain respectful and constructive tone
9. Consistency and Documentation
Editorial decisions must be consistent and well-documented.
- Maintain decision records and justification
- Ensure alignment with editorial policies
- Support transparency and auditability
10. Escalation and Oversight
Complex or sensitive cases should be escalated appropriately.
- Consult editorial board where needed
- Refer ethical issues to integrity or ethics team
- Ensure compliance with SIARE governance
11. Related Policies
Contact
For editorial decision support or guidance:
