Editors manage scope screening, reviewer selection, and decision consistency. Clear communication helps authors respond efficiently.

• Confirm scope alignment and ethical compliance
• Select reviewers with appropriate expertise
• Provide clear decision letters and revision guidance
• Document rationale for complex decisions

Editors should disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when necessary. Confidentiality is required at all stages.

When reviewer reports conflict, editors should seek additional independent assessment to preserve fairness.

Timely decisions and consistent use of templates reduce delays and improve clarity for reviewers and authors.

The editorial office provides workflow support, reviewer reminders, and policy guidance.

Editors are encouraged to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve methods and reporting.

Consistent decision timing supports author satisfaction metrics.

Clear escalation pathways help editors resolve complex ethical or methodological concerns.

Decision letters should summarize key reviewer concerns, highlight required revisions, and clarify the path to acceptance or rejection.

Editors should document any deviations from standard policy and coordinate with the editorial office for complex cases.

Clear revision priorities help authors respond efficiently and reduce second round delays.

When major revisions are needed, editors should note the critical issues that must be addressed for reconsideration.

Transparent communication strengthens author trust in the editorial process.

Concise summaries reduce misinterpretation and keep revisions focused.

Editors should monitor reviewer responsiveness and invite additional experts when delays occur.

Clear reviewer guidance improves feedback quality and reduces contradictory recommendations.

The editorial office can assist with reviewer recruitment for specialized steroid subfields.

Editors are encouraged to acknowledge reviewers for high quality feedback and to provide reminders that support timely completion.

Proactive reviewer management helps maintain the four week review goal.

Consistent reviewer pools improve decision stability.

Early reminders support the targeted review timeline.