Editors GuidelinesJournal of Ulcers
Support consistent, fair, and efficient editorial decisions.
Editorial Role
Editors assess scope fit, select reviewers, and provide clear decision letters grounded in evidence and ethics.
Decision Criteria
Evaluate methodological rigor, reporting clarity, and clinical relevance. Seek additional review when needed.
Confidentiality and Conflicts
Keep submissions confidential and recuse yourself when conflicts exist to protect impartiality.
Join the Editorial Team
Contact the editorial office to learn about editor roles.
Email the Editorial OfficeRequest InformationEmail: [email protected]
JU Commitment
We emphasize quality, transparency, and timely communication to support the ulcer research community.
Quality and Consistency
Editors and reviewers apply consistent criteria to assess methodological rigor, reporting clarity, and clinical relevance. This shared standard helps authors understand expectations and improves the reliability of published findings.
Timely Communication
Prompt responses to invitations and clear timelines help maintain an efficient review workflow. When delays arise, the editorial office coordinates updates so authors remain informed.
Ethics and Confidentiality
All participants in the editorial process are expected to respect confidentiality and disclose conflicts of interest. Ethical oversight protects patients, researchers, and the integrity of the record.
Recognition and Growth
Editorial and review service builds professional reputation and supports career development. JU provides acknowledgement and can confirm service upon request.
Decision Documentation
Clear notes on strengths, limitations, and required revisions help authors respond effectively. Consistent documentation also supports fair decision making across ulcer research submissions.
Editorial Office Support
The editorial office assists with logistics, reminders, and policy guidance so editors and reviewers can focus on scientific quality. This partnership keeps the workflow professional and reliable.
Evidence Focus
Assess conclusions against the data presented and confirm that limitations are stated clearly. Emphasizing evidence based decision making strengthens clinical utility and protects patients.
Respectful Tone
Feedback should be constructive and professional, even when recommending major revisions. A respectful tone encourages productive author engagement and improves the quality of revisions.
Decision Consistency
Apply similar standards across submissions to ensure fairness. Consistent decisions strengthen author confidence and reinforce the credibility of the journal.
Timelines
Monitor review progress and communicate with the office to keep decisions timely and transparent. Consistent follow up helps authors plan revisions and maintain momentum in clinical reporting. Use clear decision categories to document rationale more effectively.
