Open Access Journal Editorial Policy

The objective of the Open Access Editorial Policy is to provide clear explanations, best practices, and guidelines for the editorial management of IGI Global Gold Open Access Journals. All Editor(s)-in-Chief and members of the review board are expected to familiarize themselves and respectfully follow the policies and expectations established for IGI Global Gold Open Access Journals. The following policies and guidelines are to ensure the highest level of quality, integrity, accuracy, and impact for IGI Global Gold Open Access Journals. IGI Global is currently accepted as a FULL member of the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) due to its strict adherence to ethical publishing.

Will Publish

• Scientific Research
• Research Methodologies
• Empirical Research
• Practice-Based Research
• Case Studies
• Literature Reviews

Will Not Publish

• Previously Published Research
• Translations
• Dissertations/Theses
• Introductory/Basic Monographs
• Textbooks
• Biographies
• How-To Guides/Manuals
• Fiction

Open Access Publication allows authors to publish their work that will be freely available globally with no individual or institutional subscription required. Open Access publishing aids with the citation impact and discoverability of the journal and its published contents which leads to greater recognition across the academic community and in major indexes. Greater content access also increases the potential of piquing the interest of other researchers in the field for future collaboration opportunities as well as potential research funding opportunities.

Journals that are converted to open access have seen a 70-80% increase of citations than articles that are published behind a paywall.

IGI Global has 3 different types of open access publishing:

• Gold Open Access Publishing
• Platinum Open Access Publishing
• Hybrid Open Access Publishing

Gold Open Access Publishing is a publication model for journals that do not have outside funding to cover the article processing charges for authors of accepted work. As such, authors are asked to pay a one-time article processing charge only after the acceptance of their article. IGI Global will never request payment from an author before acceptance as we are not a pay-to-publish publisher. The intention of the author to pay the article processing charge while an article is under consideration for a journal shall not have any correlation on the final decision of the manuscript.

Platinum Open Access Publishing is a publication model for journals that have received outside funding (from one or more sources) to cover the Article Processing Charges (APCs) for authors of accepted work. Authors who are accepted to be published in Diamond/Platinum Open Access Journals are not expected to pay an article processing charge for the journal and thus can publish their work as Open Access for free. IGI Global recommends that all editors attempt to find funding for their journals. This will allow for authors of accepted work to publish for free under open access.

Hybrid Open Access Publishing is a publication model for journals that provides a choice to the author on whether or not they would like to publish under open access. Hybrid publishing has one publication type that is free - "Standard Access" that requires a individual or institutional subscription to access the published work and a second, optional publication type that is accompanied by an article processing charge - "Open Access".

For all Open Access publications, authors receive the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licensing arrangement. The copyright for the work remains solely with the author(s) of the article. Others may distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, without asking prior permission from the publisher or author and so long as they credit the author for the original creation. All authors are required to sign an author's warranty stating that the materials are original and unpublished elsewhere. IGI Global has first publication rights and as such, no books or journals will publish previously published work, regardless if the previously published work is open access.

What APCs Cover

In the traditional subscription-based model, the cost to the publisher to produce each article is covered by the revenue generated by journal subscriptions. Under Open Access, all the articles are published under a Creative Commons (CC BY) license; therefore, the authors or funding body will pay a one-time article processing charge (APC) to offset the costs of all of the activities associated with the publication of the article manuscript, such as:

• Digital tools used to support the manuscript management and review process
• The typesetting, formatting and layout of the article manuscript
• Online hosting
• The submission of the journal’s content to numerous abstracts, directories, and indexes
• Third-party software (e.g. plagiarism checks)
• Editorial support
• Manuscript tracking
• Communications
• Submission guideline checks
• Communications with authors and reviewers
• Promotional support and activities
• Metadata distribution
• Press releases
• Promotional communications
• Web Content
• Ads
• Fliers
• Brochures
• Postcards
• Etc.
• All published articles will be freely accessible and able to be posted and disseminated widely by the authors

A service provision of IGI Global open access publishing (as part of the open access processing charges) is professional line-by-line English language copy editing and proofreading. Once authors pay the article processing charge, the IGI Global Journal Development Team will upload the author's article for copy editing by eContent Pro. Once the copy editor completes their job, the development editor will send the copy edited document to the authors for final say before moving toward publication. This process shall not take more than 2 weeks.

When/How Payment is Collected

Payment of the APC fee (directly to the publisher) by the author or a funding body is not required until AFTER the manuscript has gone through the full double-blind peer review process and the Editor(s)-in-Chief at his/her/their full discretion has decided to accept the manuscript based on the results of the double-blind peer review process. Please note that there is absolutely NO correlation between the intention to pay the APC (Article Processing Charge) by the author and the results of review process outcomes/editorial decision. Please also note that IGI Global cannot schedule the article for publication or publish the article until payment has been received. The APC can only be set and collected by IGI Global.

Authors can either pay the article processing charge themselves, or have an outside funding source to aid with the payment of the article processing charge.

Journals Shifting from Gold to Platinum

It is recommended to procure a funding body organization willing to aid the journal with the publication of open access articles. Should an outside source or multiple sources be willing to fund the journal, authors will be able to publish in the journal as open access for free since the article processing charges will be covered by the outside funding body. A journal with outside funding from one or multiple sources will shift from Gold Open Access to Platinum Open Access.

Authorship of Reviewers

It is important to note that review board members who submit article manuscripts to the journal, once their article manuscript has undergone the full double-blind peer review process, will be held to the same APC standards that all other contributors are held to if their work is accepted for publication. Review board members will be eligible for the same APC discounts, waivers, and subsidies as all other article manuscript contributors.

When an author chooses to publish under Open Access, they will have the option to pay for the APC personally or secure a funding source, either from their institution, organization, awarded grants, etc. The author should be sure to acknowledge any funding received in the "Acknowledgment" section in their document. This serves as an acknowledgment to the funding source for aiding with the publication and overall discoverability of the article in its open access state. If the author did not receive any funding, this should also be stated in this section as well.

This new mandatory aspect to an accepted article has been included in the submission guidelines for our journals. Editor(s)-in-Chief of IGI Global Journals are tasked to ensure that all accepted articles now have this necessary information included in these articles.

An overview of IGI Global’s open access publishing can be viewed here.

The role of the Editor(s)-in-Chief of a journal entails being able to successfully carry out various central responsibilities. The following is a general list of what is expected of an Editor-in-Chief:

Manuscript Recruitment Duties

• Promoting the journal within their professional network, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences, etc.
• Sharing published content of the journal within their professional network, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences, etc.
• Acquiring quality research articles to sustain the publication frequency of the journal.
• Communicating with any co-editors, managing editors and review board members to encourage them to promote the journal in their professional networks, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences etc.

Submitted Manuscript Duties

• Assessing submitted articles to ensure they fit the scope and topic coverage of the journal before assigning reviewers.
• Sending articles for double-blind peer review.
• Securing at least 3 reviews on each paper. A review from the editor cannot replace a review in the double-blind peer review process.
• Coordinating the article revision process with contributing authors.
• Ensuring that authors submit materials with references and in-text citations that are correct and strictly adhere to APA format.
• Running plagiarism checks on research papers to ensure that the papers have not been plagiarized.
• Ensuring that authors do not self-plagiarize or self-cite in their own papers.
• Being sure that the articles that are being considered for publication have never been published before elsewhere.
• Ensuring that all contributing authors strictly follow IGI Global’s formatting and submission guidelines. (Note: Authors may wish to utilize supplemental editorial services to further polish their work such as figure and equation corrections and improvements. For these types of services IGI Global recommends eContent Pro. IGI Global authors and editors receive exclusive discounts on these services).
• Making final editorial decisions on article manuscripts.
• Ensuring each accepted article is in its final revised form before it is moved into our pre-production and production stages.
• Sending each completed and accepted article to the Journal Development Department of IGI Global by no later than the contracted deadlines.

Review Board Management

• Recruiting qualified individuals to join the review board of the journal.
• Organizing and maintaining an editorial review board through the submission system.
• Maintaining contact with the review board to ensure timely and quality reviews are completed.
• Rating completed evaluations by reviewers to give them an incentive to do better or continue the hard work.
• Monitoring the board continually to maintain ethicality and retain only active members.
• Meeting with the established review board on a monthly basis.

Citation Impact/Indexing of the Journal

• Ensuring the journal adheres as closely as possible to the criteria put in place by the flagship indices.
• Ensuring accepted and published content is making a significant contribution to the academic community.
• Ensuring the data in accepted article manuscripts is represented accurately and clearly.
• Acquiring diverse content from all around the world.
• Recruiting diverse individuals to support the journal as reviewers and as the editorial leadership.
• Ensuring the peer review process is being completed with the highest quality and ethical practices.
• Ensuring that there is a level of selectivity with regard to the articles that are being considered for publication.
• Ensuring that all articles accepted into the journal adhere to the mission and scope of the journal.
• Encouraging contributing authors and reviewers to share their published work in their institutional repository and within their professional network, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences, etc.
• Promoting the journal and sharing published content of the journal within their professional network, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences, etc.
• Posting the table of contents of all published articles on various listservs.
• Keeping IGI Global abreast of any indices or international libraries that may be of interest to the betterment of the journal.
• Alerting IGI Global to Open Access directories that fit the scope of the journal.

Sustainability of the Journal

• Staying in regular contact with the development editor with whom you have been assigned to collaborate.
• Seeking funding bodies and/or partnership opportunities to help offset the costs associated with the Article Processing Charge (APC).
• Ensuring that the topics, mission and objective of the journal are continuously updated to remain relevant to the research community.

For more information on journal editorial responsibility, please see this International Standard for Editors by COPE.

All article manuscript submission status updates, acceptance, and rejection notifications must be handled by the journal’s Editor(s)-in-Chief. Should an author come to the development editor with a request for a status update, they will forward the author on to the Editor(s)-in-Chief to respond. It is important that the Editor(s)-in-Chief create a strong rapport with the authors. This will ensure that they will be interested in publishing with the journal again in the future. It is important that editors do not feel pressure from the authors to bypass or hurry any level of the peer review process. The Editor(s)-in-Chief should not be accepting any form of remuneration or bribes for pushing the work through the process.

Regarding submissions that have not been completed, it is the responsibility of the Editor(s)-in-Chief to contact the authors and see if they are still interested in publishing within the journal. Letting them know the phases that they are still missing (e.g. documents, figures, etc.) allows for a more responsive author.

Should there be old submission listings from previous years, it is the responsibility of the Editor(s)-in-Chief to reach out to the authors to see if they are still interested in publishing within the journal. Should the Editor(s)-in-Chief not receive a response from the authors in two (2) weeks, they may exercise their right as the Editor(s)-in-Chief to remove the listing from the system.

The role of the Managing Editor is to provide a helping hand to the workload of the Editor(s)-in-Chief. There should be no more than two (2) Managing Editors appointed to a journal. Often, the Editor(s)-in-Chief may request the Managing Editor to perform the following functions:

• Expanding the reach of the journal
• Helping with increasing submissions and visibility of the full published articles
• Moving article manuscripts in the system
• Sending article manuscripts through initial assessment (desk review)
• Assigning reviewers to article manuscripts
• Sending article manuscripts out for revisions
• Helping to organize and maintain the review board
• Other duties as assigned by the Editor-in-Chief

*Note: Managing Editors should get a confirmation from the Editor(s)-in-Chief before making important decisions on article manuscripts.

IGI Global recommends that all members of the journal have their IGI Global profiles and their ORCiD iDs linked to ensure that all activities done within IGI Global (not strictly just for journals) are recorded for your academic and professional careers. Learn More

Editors and Co-Editors:

Many IGI Global journal publications have more than one editor on them. We recommend that if the work load for a journal is too much for one person to handle that up to two (2) additional co-editors could be recruited to help. IGI Global has set a maximum of no more than three (3) editors on one journal publication at a time*. This will allow accurate and constant communication between the Editor(s)-in-Chief and there will be less confusion should something happen in the system that the other editors don’t know about. For all cases where there is more than one Editor-in-Chief appointed to a journal, the editors will need to provide firm clarification as to how they plan to operate the journal with equal balance of leadership and oversight to ensure that all ethical processes and editorial policies are being executed properly.

*Special exceptions may be made to have four (4) Editors-in-Chief lead a journal so long as it is fully clarified how the editors intend to lead the journal and meet all ethical requirements.

If there are disputes between the Editor(s)-in-Chief of a journal, IGI Global as the publisher, will not get involved. It is the responsibility of the Editor(s)-in-Chief to resolve all disagreements between each other in a professional manner.

Managing Editors:

Editor(s)-in-Chief are welcome to invite and appoint Managing Editors to support with the workload as well. There should be no more than two (2) Managing Editors appointed to a journal. Having too many managing editors on the journal could like to disorganization and the potential to duplicate items that have already been completed. Having fewer managing editors is also easier for the Editor(s)-in-Chief to manage on a daily basis.

Contract Amendments for Editors:

If a sole Editor-in-Chief decides to step down, the Development Editor should be immediately notified. It will then be at the discretion of IGI Global who will be appointed to takeover the vacant Editor-in-Chief position.

If an Editor-in-Chief decides to step down and they have co-editors, all the other editors will need to confirm that they are aware of the departure. A contract addendum will need to be signed outlining the removal of the editor from the contract agreement and confirming the current editorship.

Should any adjustments to the leadership of the journal be required, a formal contract addendum will need to be issued out by the Intellectual Property & Contracts Department and all parties will need to sign the agreement.

International Ambassadors:

IGI Global has just implemented a new appointed leadership role called "International Ambassadors." Due to some feedback that the publisher has received from the flagship indices like the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Scopus and Web of Science, we have had to make an adjustment regarding the International Advisory Board and the inclusion of the International Ambassadors. In order to ensure that the leadership of the journal is labelled correctly, all individuals who can't serve in an advisory capacity can be recommended to be labelled as an International Ambassador. The roles of this new leadership labelling are:

• Aiding in the promotion of the journal.
• Supporting with the ongoing recruitment of submissions.
• Identifying different discoverability/visibility channels for the journal.
• Helping to expand the overall network for the journal

International Advisory Board:

IGI Global journal publications are now encouraged to recruit qualified individuals to serve in an advisory capacity for the journal and join the International Advisory Board. These members of the journal leadership are meant to aid the editor(s) with the following:

• Providing ongoing recommendations regarding the scope of the journal.
• Advising/supporting the editorial leadership team with some of the editorial decision-making for the journal as needed.
• Supporting the integrity and credibility of the journal.
• Helping to expand the overall network of the journal.

As a full member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), IGI Global and its editors have been found to be following sound ethical standards as well as having the highest quality of publication process. As such the double-blind peer review process must be conducted ethically and responsibly as the credibility of the journal could be at stake if an author, reviewer or reader were to know that the double-blind peer review process was compromised. Should they open a case with COPE to investigate, IGI Global is expected to provide any information to COPE that we have record of.

For more information regarding an ethical peer review process, please see this guideline document that COPE has put together for editors, authors and publishers to reference.

Articles that the Editor(s)-in-Chief of the journal deem in scope and suitable then enter the double-blind peer review process. This process is designed to ensure that there is no bias for or against any articles that are being considered for future publication. If any reviewer has a concern that they have a conflict of interest they should immediately bring that up to the editor of the journal. The editor will then assign a new reviewer to the article.

The Editor(s)-in-Chief may not serve on the review board of the journal(s) that they oversee. They also may not assign themselves as reviewers or complete reviews that take part in the double-blind peer review evaluations for articles that are submitted to the journals that they oversee. Editors have the ability to view the names, affiliations and contact information of the authors which directly compromises their ability to act as a reviewer in a double-blind peer review process. Providing feedback to authors is welcomed and encouraged; however, an editor's comments/review cannot take the place of a reviewer evaluation for the double-blind peer review process.

The Editor(s)-in-Chief should also not be adjusting the decision a reviewer makes in their evaluation for an article to fuel an editorial decision on the article. Adjusting the formal decision from a reviewer is compromising the peer review process as the decision is being adjusted to what the editor wants, which could show a bias or favoritism to indices or other authors. It is at the Editor's discretion on whether or not they would like to continue with a manuscript, but the authors are entitled to view the true evaluations that were done by the reviewers.

Should the major indices be aware that the double-blind peer review process for any journal is not being conducted ethically, the credibility of the journal and the editors could be damaged. Journals that are indexed could be dropped, those that are under consideration to be indexed could be rejected, any authors seeking to submit could turn away, reviewers could leave the board or choose not to submit their applications and readers or libraries could stop working with the published content of the journal.

Tampering with the double-blind peer review process will lead to a dismissal from the journal and a cancellation of the contract following a thorough investigation. Moreover, future editorial opportunities with IGI Global will be diminished.

As a full member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), IGI Global closely follows the ethical guidelines of editing peer reviews by COPE.

The following turnaround is recommended:

Reviewers are given an average of 7 to 10 days to write their reviews. Five days are given for the review of a revised manuscript. Once the manuscript has been formally accepted, it can be published in as little as 3 to 5 days, providing that the Article Processing Charge (APC) has been successfully processed and all submission guidelines met.

IGI Global has decided to switch from our more traditional publication structure (i.e. Semi-Annual, Quarterly, Bi-Monthly) to a Continuous Volume Frequency for Open Access Journals. This means that as articles are moved through the double-blind peer review process and accepted, IGI Global will be proceeding with the articles to our pre-production and production stages, so long as the article processing charge has been successfully processed and complimentary copyediting/proofreading hs been completed (as applicable). The final cutoff of the volume year will be November 30th of each calendar year. At the end of each year, IGI Global will offer a full printed publication for all the content published throughout the respective volume year to anyone who is interested in purchasing a physical copy of the journal.

For those journals moving away from a set publication schedule and no longer carrying set issue restrictions, the Editor(s)-in-Chief is/are asked to ensure that a consistent or increased number of article manuscripts are published within each volume year (calendar year) of the journal publication. Editor(s)-in-Chief should strive to steadily increase the number of articles published annually. There should be an absolute minimum of at least five (5) article manuscripts published in a volume year to ensure eligibility for the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). For a healthy journal, we like to see an increase in submissions as well as an increase in published content.

IGI Global would like to see the formal minimum met for each journal to be twelve (12) article manuscripts published per volume year. It is recommended that for standard article manuscripts, when they are accepted following the double-blind peer review process, they be assigned to the first "issue" of the current volume year.

Only the volume year will be reflected on the webpage of the journal and in the database, it is only internally within the eEditorial Discovery system where there is any formal numbering being assigned to the article manuscripts. Please note that this labelling system is purely for organization and the issue level numbering will not be available on the webpage for the published content any longer.

Please note that the indices do not like to see a dip in the published content of a journal as it shows a lack of interest.

There is no longer a maximum number of articles that can be published per volume year. Your development editor will work to gradually move the accepted content into the pre-production and production stages. Editor(s)-in-Chief are free to continue to add more accepted articles into the first "issue" despite some articles having already been finalized and locked.

Editors should always strive to increase the total number of accepted and published articles by 15% each volume year.

An example of a 15% increase of published content from one volume year to the next.

Journals moving to a Continuous Volume Publication Frequency should aim to publish no less than the total number of articles published the year prior but should be aiming to steadily work toward publishing a higher number each year. It is important to keep in mind that to maintain eligibility for inclusion into the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), there will need to be a formal minimum of 12 article manuscripts published in each volume year.

It is recommended that for standard article manuscripts, when they are accepted following the double-blind peer review process, they be assigned to the first "issue" of the volume year – example: Volume 1, Issue 1 – with all standard article manuscripts numbered sequentially across that volume and issue and published as part of that “issue” up through to the end of the volume year (calendar year). Only the volume number and year will be reflected on the webpage of the journal and in the database. Internally, within the eEditorial Discovery system there will be formal volume, issue and article numbering assigned to the article manuscripts.

Please note that this formal numbering inside the system is to help manage and organize the accepted papers and will not be displayed on the website.

Only original, previously unpublished manuscripts should be considered for publication. Any manuscript that has a pre-publication posting online by another publisher or has already been formally published cannot be considered. Also, materials posted openly online in databases such as ResearchGate, SSRN, arXiv, etc. should not be considered until they have been removed from those respective sites.

IGI Global abides by international copyright law, and as such all contributors of traditionally published journals (published behind a paywall) are asked to sign an IGI Global Author’s Warranty and Transfer of Copyright Agreement prior to publication. Authors of Open Access manuscripts will be required to sign an Author’s Warranty (but the copyright will not be transferred to IGI Global and will remain with the author). The warranty portion ensures that materials submitted to IGI Global for consideration are original and have not been published elsewhere previously.

All article manuscript contributors are asked to sign an IGI Global Author’s Warranty prior to publication. The warranty ensures that materials submitted to IGI Global for consideration are original and have not been published elsewhere previously.

IGI Global exercises First Publication Rights to open access work, meaning that the verbatim article has not appeared elsewhere, which includes open access publication online or in print, prior to being released by IGI Global. After publication with IGI Global, the open access content may be republished in other outlets.

IGI Global defines plagiarism as the intentional or unintentional use of another individuals, or collection of individuals’, ideas, theories, models, equations, conclusions, research (intellectual property), and/or verbatim or paraphrased words without proper attribution to the original source.

A conflict of interest occurs when an entity or individual becomes unreliable because of a clash between personal (or self-serving) interests and professional duties or responsibilities. This can be highly detrimental to academic publications.

Conflicts of interest occur when any financial or other personal considerations from authors or reviewers have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. It is important that authors and reviewers declare all conflicts of interest relevant to the work under consideration. These conflicts of interest may include any relationships or roles, both financial and personal, that might interfere with the interpretation of the work to avoid the potential for bias. Competing interests include, but are not limited to: funding sources, financial interests, employment status, as well as those that go beyond financial interests (non-financial interests). The disclosure of such interests helps to provide a transparent process that allows readers to form their own judgments of potential bias.

If at any time an editor or author suspects a conflict of interest they should bring the matter to the publisher’s attention immediately (e.g. an author of submitted work is based at their same institution and on a competitive project). Should a reviewer experience a conflict of interest (e.g. they are aware of the article manuscript author’s identity and/or are based at the same institution), they should bring the matter to the editor’s attention immediately. If an author perceives that there may be a conflict of interest for their submitted work, they should include a declaration of any conflict of interest along with the article manuscript upon submission.

Conflict of interest statements/declarations are now mandatory for all manuscripts to have before publication of an accepted manuscript. This declaration should be placed after an acknowledgement and before the funding agency information. Conflict of interest statements should state whether all, some, or none of the authors have conflicting ideas, research, beliefs, etc.

If all or some of the authors have a conflict of interest, each author should provide their statement in this section.

If none of the authors have a conflict of interest, the statement can simply say, “The authors of this publication declare there is no conflict of interest.”

The Editor(s)-in-Chief and the Managing Editors cannot submit their own manuscript(s) for consideration in standard volume(s) of the journal(s) that they oversee. The Editor(s)-in-Chief and Managing Editors have the ability to view the names, contact information and affiliations of the reviewers which directly compromises the double-blind peer review process.

Should a manuscript authored by an Editor-in-Chief or a Managing Editor of a journal be selected for the standard volume of the journal without receiving that exception from the publisher, the development editor will correspond with the Editor(s)-in-Chief to recommend an alternate related journal that the manuscript authored by the Editor(s) can be submitted to for consideration.

For more information on an editor as an author in their own journal, please see a previous case that was investigated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Journal Associate Editors, Editorial Review Board Members, and Ad-Hoc Reviewers may submit an article manuscript to the journal they serve as a reviewer on. However, the Editor(s)-in-Chief must ensure that the article manuscript is submitted for review to a reviewer who does not have a conflict of interest in reviewing the article manuscript. It is advised to pay close attention to the author and reviewer affiliations. The author should never be assigned as a reviewer of their own work and the author should be held to the same revision standards as other authors.

It is important to note that Associate Editors, Editorial Review Board Members, and Ad-Hoc Reviewers who submit article manuscripts to the journal, once their article manuscript has undergone the full double-blind peer review process, will be held to the same APC standards that all other contributors are held to if their work is accepted for publication. Associate Editors, Editorial Review Board Members, and Ad-Hoc Reviewers will be eligible for the same APC discounts, waivers, and subsidies as all other article manuscript contributors. Editor(s)-in-Chief should also be aware that the ratio of articles published by members on the Editorial Review Board should not exceed the amount of articles published by those who are not affiliated directly with the journal.

Simultaneous submission is defined as a work submitted to IGI Global for publication that is under review, has been previously published, or has been accepted for publication elsewhere in whole or in part. IGI Global only accepts original, previously unpublished content to every one of its publications. Even if prior permission is received, IGI Global will not publish already published work. Book and journal proposals, book chapters, and journal articles may only be actively considered with one source at a time (i.e., journal articles may only be under review by one (1) journal at a time). This includes submissions within IGI Global publications and across other publisher publications (i.e., a journal article submitted to an IGI Global journal cannot be submitted to another IGI Global journal or book while under review; a journal article submitted to an IGI Global journal cannot be submitted to another publisher’s journal or book while still under review).

IGI Global has recently encountered occurrences where authors will take a manuscript or a certain “edited” version with an “edited title” and submit it across multiple IGI Global books and journals at the same time for simultaneous processing. This can result in the same chapter/article being published in two different publications. Please note and please tell your contributors that this action is ethically wrong and IGI Global does not tolerate this behavior. When IGI Global encounters this behavior, we will outright reject all the manuscripts submitted by the individual.

If a manuscript is rejected following the peer review, an author can make the appropriate revisions and either submit it for new consideration to the same journal or consider submitting it to another related journal.

Upon completion of a thorough investigation, those found guilty of simultaneously submitting their work will face appropriate consequences that typically includes the removal of the author’s manuscripts from the submission process and a suspension of the author from publishing with IGI Global.

Salami slicing, or data fragmentation, is defined as the practice of splitting up the findings of one large study into multiple papers. Oftentimes, these fragmented papers are reporting on the same research population, methods, and research question with different findings in each piece. While salami slicing increases the amount of literature, the amount of knowledge remains the same. This overcrowds publications with the same information, potentially making it more difficult to find different, emerging information and wasting the time of editors and peer reviewers who could have instead reviewed one comprehensive and valuable paper.

Upon completion of a thorough investigation, those found guilty of salami slicing will face appropriate consequences that may include the removal of the author’s manuscripts from the submission process and a suspension of the author from publishing with IGI Global.

It is important that research being submitted to IGI Global journals fit within the scope of the publication. Submitting work that does not fit the scope of the publication will result in the desk rejection of the article before it even goes to the peer review process.

IGI Global follows the guidance of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which acknowledges that patients and study participants have a right to privacy that should not be breached without informed consent.

Consent to Participate

Informed written consent must be voluntarily provided from any participants involved in a study, prior to the start of the study. Should the participant be a minor or is considered vulnerable and unable to provide informed consent, a legal guardian will need to provide consent. Should the participant be deceased, a next of kin may provide consent. Participants must have full knowledge of the study they are participating in, including the risks involved. Authors must include a statement confirming the participants consent within the manuscript.

Should verbal consent be obtained instead of written consent, authors must explain why written consent was not obtained, the approval process for the verbal consent, and its documentation methods.

Consent to Publish

Individuals who agree to participate in a study, may not agree to have their identifiable data published. Identifiable data includes but is not limited to descriptions, photographs, images, videos, names, dates of birth, and biometrical characteristics. Identifiable data should generally be excluded from the manuscript as much as possible. Manuscripts that do include potentially identifiable data should obtain written informed consent that the data and any additional images may be published. Consent must be received from the participant (or a legal guardian for minors or next of kin for the deceased) prior to submission. When in doubt, it is best to obtain written informed consent.

Manuscripts that include identifiable images or data of participants must include a statement confirming that permission was obtained to publish the images or data. If the data is anonymized, authors must state that no consent to publish was required. Alterations to images and/or data to anonymize them should not distort scientific meaning.

Ethics Approval

All studies on humans (individuals, human data, or material) must be conducted in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors must receive ethical approval for all protocols from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or other appropriate ethics committee to ensure compliance with national and international guidelines. Authors must include details of this approval upon submission of the manuscript and should provide the name of the ethics committee and permit numbers where available.

Manuscripts granted an exemption by an ethics committee should state so with a full explanation and the name of the granting committee within the manuscript. Ethical approval should always be sought prior to the start of the research/study. Retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained. Authors should also check their national ethical guidelines.

Non-stigmatizing and non-discriminatory language should be used when categorizing groups by race/ethnicity, age, disease, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A justification of the choice of definitions and categories should be explained including whether a relevant funding agency required the categorization.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials must be registered in a publicly accessible registry prior to the trials initiation. Suitable registries can be found at the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The trial registration number and registration date should be included in the article and/or article’s abstract.

Should a trial have not been registered prior to participant recruitment, a retrospective trial registration should be sought. Authors retrospectively registering trials should provide an explanation for the retrospective registration as well as the trial registration number and date.

Human Embryos and Stem Cells

Submissions that include studies involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates must offer detailed information on the ethical treatment of the animals including their appropriate care and handling. Manuscripts should include the name of the ethics committee(s) which approved the study and study procedures must be carried out in accordance with applicable national or international guidelines. If the study did not require ethics approval or was granted an exemption, this should be stated in the manuscript.

Studies involving client-owned animals should have documented informed consent from the client or owner. Such studies should still showcase an adherence to the best practices of veterinary care.

Authors should consult with the “Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments’ (ARRIVE) guidelines developed by the NC3Rs when submitting manuscripts describing animal research. Every effort should be taken to reduce suffering and euthanasia or anesthesia methods must be described in detail. Researchers are advised to consult the NC3Rs guide on Humane Endpoints and the American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals, as well as follow applicable veterinary guidelines such as the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Authors should also consult the ethical principles in the Basel Declaration and the guidelines by the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) and the Association for the study of Animal Behaviour.

When describing research on threatened/endangered species, studies should comply with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction, the IUCN red list index of threatened species and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Research involving cultivated or wild plants and plant material should follow guidelines provided by the authors’ institution and national or international regulations. Manuscripts describing such research should include a statement of permissions granted and/or licenses.

Voucher specimens much be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection that provides access to deposited material. The manuscript must include information on the voucher specimen and who identified it, including Genus name, species name, and year of publication.

Authors should comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Manuscripts that include paleontological and geological material should provide detailed information that shows a clear provenance (or attempt to determine provenance in older museum collections), numbers and repository information, museum name (if applicable), and geographic location. Studies must be conducted in accordance with national or international regulations and the author should obtain any permits that may be required for the research and publication of the manuscript from the relevant authority. Manuscripts must include a statement confirming that the necessary permits were acquired and should name the authority that provided those permits. All samples must be collected and exported responsibly and in accordance with national and local law.

Archaeological work that involves human remains requires that all necessary permits relevant for access to the site and the handling of the remains is obtained prior to data collection. Authors should comply with the Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists).

Authors should also consult the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) normative instruments for the protection of cultural heritage, and Resolutions, Motions, guidance and other statements of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Manuscripts that include studies from protected heritage sites must be conducted in accordance with any necessary guidelines and authors should obtain any permits that may be required for the research and publication of the manuscript from the relevant authority prior to data collection. Manuscripts must include a statement confirming that the necessary permits were acquired and should name the authority that provided those permits.

Authors should also consult the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) normative instruments for the protection of cultural heritage.

Authors may be asked to provide the underlying source data used to support their manuscript in order to comply with open data requirements of the publication, especially in the case of Open Access publications. In such cases, authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data or present an explanation for why such data cannot be openly displayed (i.e., ethical or security considerations). In cases where the data is restricted for such reasons, authors should provide a description for its restrictions and the necessary information required for a reader to apply to access the data.

Standards of reporting guidelines should be utilized to ensure transparency and reproducibility of research. A comprehensive list of reporting guidelines for medical research can be viewed via the EQUATOR network website.

After a manuscript is published, it may be found that major corrections must be made, or the manuscript needs to be retracted due to ethical concerns including plagiarism. IGI Global will conduct a thorough investigation of these corrections and retractions and take the appropriate steps, as outlined below.

In the cases of plagiarized content

The manuscript in question is fully and thoroughly investigated before further action is taken. Once confirmed to be plagiarized, as of 2020, IGI Global now keeps the full plagiarized content (body text) within the publication; however, each page is noted with a watermark that the content is considered retracted from the publication. This is so that the various retraction monitoring databases can adjust their data appropriately and it offers even fuller transparency. The adjusted publication is resent to the printers and IGI Global’s full network of distributors are notified and provided updated metadata feeds and the electronic content.

Regarding major corrections

If an author, editor, or reviewer brings forth a major correction request to IGI Global, the request will be carefully reviewed and the decision to honor the change request will be made at the publisher’s discretion. Major correction requests include: changes to titles, name changes, affiliation changes, and content changes. If a change is made, the file in question will be updated appropriately and distributed out in the form of updated files and/or metadata to all impacted parties, and IGI Global will communicate with the contributors impacted.

As a U.S.-based company, IGI Global must comply with federal, state, and local statutes and mandates administered by the Federal Government of the U.S. and related regulatory agencies. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. upon other countries will be discussed with IGI Global’s legal counsel. Any necessary actions that IGI Global may need to take due to U.S. sanctions will be made transparent and communicated to those affected.

We as a publisher do strive to remain neutral to geopolitical issues. As we understand there are many conflicts taking place all over the world and do exercise sensitivity and heartfelt concern, we are continually striving to make our publishing opportunities as inclusive as possible, ensuring that researchers around the world – regardless of race, gender, religion, or nationality – are able to collaborate on research projects and contribute to research progressions that benefit so many people. This follows the advice from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

IGI Global will continue to monitor geopolitical issues and consult with our legal counsel as necessary.

IGI Global defines a “withdrawal” as a request to remove a manuscript from consideration in a journal before the manuscript has been formally accepted and published for the journal. The act of withdrawing a manuscript from consideration in a journal after the manuscript has been fully submitted and assessed by the editor and the reviewers is not a common practice amongst academic researchers.

Should an author need to withdraw their article from consideration, IGI Global will need a formal appeal from all authors on the manuscript. This appeal should include a detailed request explaining why the work is being withdrawn. This request will then be provided to IGI Global’s Executive Editorial Board for consideration. Requesting to withdraw an article from consideration should only happen if the circumstance absolutely requires that action.

There are no guarantees that the submission can be withdrawn if the article has already utilized some or all of the journal’s resources.

Please kindly ensure that the manuscript is fully complete, and all authors are in agreement before the manuscript is formally submitted to a journal for consideration.

*IMPORTANT NOTE: If the article was accepted under the Open Access (OA) model and the APC has already been paid, that payment is not refundable. *

IGI Global reviewers support our journals on a voluntary basis. Withdrawing a manuscript during or after the peer review process wastes the time of these experts and the time of the editor(s) of the journal as well, which could discourage continued support for the journal and the research community in the future.

IGI Global defines a “redaction” as a request to remove or the act of removing a published manuscript from a journal. Requests to redact an article are incredibly uncommon and is recommended only if there are issues with an article’s research which in turn contradicts the conclusions the authors made. This action is also used by the publisher if ethical or research misconduct is discovered. Retractions are used as a tool to ensure readers of any redacted published work know that the research is unreliable in some aspect.

Possible Reasons for Redaction in terms of unintentional research issues:

1. Data was misrepresented or miscalculated in the published work.
2. Experimental errors.
3. Failure to disclose major competing interests.

Possible Reasons for Redaction in Terms of Ethical or Research Misconduct:

1. Plagiarism is discovered in the manuscript.
2. The article manuscript was previously published elsewhere such as a duplicate submission leading to a redundant publication.
3. The findings of the article were previously published elsewhere including:
• Plagiarized findings
• Lack of disclosure to the editor
• Lack of permission to republish
• Lack of justification to republish
4. Authors did not receive authorization to use material or data in their manuscript.
5. Data fabrication.
6. Copyright infringement. See IGI Global’s Ethics and Malpractice Page.
7. The peer review process was compromised or manipulated in order to guarantee publication.
8. Unethical processes were used to conduct the studies/research including authors not receiving necessary ethical approvals before the start of the study. See the “Submission Conflicts Section.”

Following the COPE guidelines on retractions, manuscripts that are discovered to have issues in the published work will be redacted by the publisher in order to keep the literature strong and impactful. Any redaction requests from authors will be considered by IGI Global’s Executive Editorial Board.

There are no guarantees that the published work can be redacted at the author’s request if there are unsubstantiated claims and/or if the content can be corrected rather than removed.

IGI Global defines “Citation Manipulation” as the following:

• The coercion of an author to include research that was published by
• The editor
• The publication
• Colleagues of the editor
• Related publications that the editor is part of
• The author using excessive citations of the following in an attempt to better their chances of their manuscript being accepted for publication
• Citing the work of the editor
• Citing the work of the publication
• The author using excessive self-citations to boost the citations of their previous publications
• Excessive citation of a publication or of another author’s work (of a well-known scholar in the field) to contribute greatly to the citations of those works.
• Also known as “honorary citations” or “citation stacking”
• The act in which an editor includes any citations or references in an author’s work without their consent
• The included work can be their own published work, their journal’s published work, work authored by colleagues of theirs, work published by related journals that the editor is related to in some capacity

In the following sections, we go into more detail about the citation manipulation situations that IGI Global does not condone.

Claims against editors, reviewers, and authors suspected to be engaging in any of these practices should be directed to IGI Global’s Intellectual Property and Contracts Division at contracts@igi-global.com.

IGI Global defines “coercive citation” as the act of the editor or reviewers of the publication coercing authors of submitted manuscripts to include references in their writing for the sole purpose of inflating the citations of a specific published work and not for the betterment of the research in the manuscript they are assessing.

Coercive Citation can occur in two different capacities:

1. Editorial Coercive Citation
2. Reviewer Coercive Citation

IGI Global does not condone the act of coercive citations in any capacity, nor does it advise or force its reviewers or editors to use coercive citation to boost the citations of their or other IGI Global published research

• The editor or reviewer coercing the author to reference the editor’s or reviewer’s previously published work,
• The editor or reviewer coercing the author to reference the previously published work of the publication(s) they serve on,
• The editor or a reviewer coercing the author to reference the work of close colleagues of the editor or reviewer, and
• The editor or a reviewer coercing the author to reference the previously published work of related publication(s) to the editor or reviewer.

Editor(s)-in-Chief are typically more aware of timely research in the academic community and the suggestion to an author to include a reference is welcomed and encouraged, however, suggested research to authors that will not help their own studies and instead provide personal gain to the editor or reviewers of the journal is not condoned. The inclusion of cited work in a manuscript where it serves no purpose to the research in any capacity can not only hurt the impact of the manuscript that work is cited in, but could also hurt the impact of the cited work.

For more information, please see the following COPE Cases:

1. Reviewer Coercion 1
2. Reviewer Coercion 2
3. Editorial and Reviewer Coercion
4. Editorial Coercion

“Citation Manipulation” is defined as the excessive citation of previously published work of the journal that an author is submitting to with the sole intent on manipulating the consideration and decision processes by the journal leadership. IGI Global journals do not have requirements to include citations of the journal in order for that article to be accepted.

Authors are not banned from referencing the previously published research of the journal, however, the excessive use of citations of articles that were previously published by the journal with the intent to increase the likelihood that their article will be accepted is not condoned and can hurt the journal more than it inflates the citations.

No editorial decision should be dependent on whether or not an article includes specific references of the journal’s previously published work.

Please see a PowerPoint Presentation on COPE’s perspective of citation manipulation.

Self-Citation is important for the academic community because the development of ideas and research are based on previous findings. Authors should be very aware of what previously published research of their own they are using in their current work and ensure that that work is properly cited to avoid “self-plagiarism.” Routinely mass citing their own work can also lead to “citation farming.”

IGI Global defines “Self-Citation/Self-Promotion” as the act of an author citing their own previously published work excessively in current or future manuscripts on similar studies with the sole intent to boost the citations of those previously published manuscripts.

The use of an author’s previously published work in current writing is acceptable; however, we strongly recommend that the use of the previous research should be cited to show how ideas and theories by the authors have developed or changed over time.

IGI Global recommends that no more than 20% of all of the references for an academic manuscript under consideration or accepted for publication in an IGI Global book or journal should be written by the author(s) of the manuscript in order to avoid “self-promotion” and any scrutiny from the academic community and/or the indices.

Should the editor or reviewer of the journal suspect self-promotion in an author’s work, IGI Global recommends speaking with the author, offering further recommendations for better alternative references that can be used, and asking for revisions. Editors are within their right to Reject manuscripts that have no justifiable reason to heavily self-promote an author’s past work.

For more information on self-citation and how it can turn into self-promotion, please visit this website.

COPE provides a discussion document for citation manipulation for reference. Please also see The Scholarly Kitchen’s article on citation manipulation for more information.

“Citation Farming” is a branch of self-citation/self-promotion, defined as authors who routinely and excessively cite their own research work, their colleague’s research work or research work published by projects that they are associated with, with the sole intent to inflate the impact and citations of their previously published work.

While self-citation is important to show how the research the authors are conducting is evolving, citing work that does not have a serious impact on the current research or citing work within a small network can lead to skewed findings or the perception of “narrow research.”

“Citation Stacking” occurs when two or more journals, often within the same publisher, excessively cite each other’s work with the sole purpose of increasing the citations and impact of those journals. This can occur when a journal is seeking to inflate their metrics without increasing their self-citation rates. In situations like this, journals are typically the “donor” or “recipient” of citations from one or more publications.

Stacking citations in journals within the same publisher can hurt the journal more than it helps it. Excessively citing content that does not wholly align with the author’s original purpose can degrade the quality of the research being cited and the quality of the research being published.

For more information on citation stacking and how it affects journals, editors and authors, please see this article written by Enago Academy in 2018.

Please see this article written by Jenny Neophytou (2015) who was the Senior Manager of the Academic Market & Impact Analysis for Wiley on Self-Citation and Citation Stacking and what the indices did to “punish” guilty journals.

“Honorary Citations” are classified as the excessive citation of a single individual’s or a group of individuals’ previously published work in an author’s research solely because those individuals are well-known scholars in the field. An author would include these citations in their work in an effort to increase the likelihood of their article being accepted for publication in the journal.

Authors using honorary citations in their articles can not only hurt their own research by degrading the impact of their findings with research that does not wholly align, but they can hurt the impact of the research they are citing as well by degrading the impact of the research they cited in their work.

IGI Global strongly recommends that authors should only use references that wholly align with their research in one capacity or another in an effort to preserve the impact of their own research and the research of others.

IGI Global does not condone the act of manipulating citations in a manuscript without the author’s consent with the intent to publish the manuscript with citations that inflate works related to the editor in some capacity. Situations can be but are not limited to the following:

• Inclusion of references or citations of the editor’s previously published work,
• Inclusion of references or citations of the previously published work by the editor’s journal,
• Inclusion of references or citations of close colleagues to the editor, and
• Inclusion of references or citations of related journals that the editor is affiliated with.

Editors are known to have better knowledge of recent research in the academic community and are encouraged to recommend research that can better help further the author’s writing and findings. The inclusion of citations that do not directly relate to the research of the manuscript and instead have the intention to inflate the citations or impact of one’s work is unethical and can hurt the impact of the published manuscript and the publication that the manuscript is published within.

The manipulation of an author’s manuscript at any time without their consent with the intention to publish the manipulated manuscript is not permitted in any IGI Global journal. Editors found guilty of engaging in this practice risk dismissals and a ban from leading other publications.

For every journal, IGI Global likes to see no less than 30 active article manuscript submissions under consideration at one time. It is important to be recruiting authors who have research expertise that fits within the scope of the journal. See the “Calls for Papers” section below to get ideas on how to recruit authors. Also, we strongly encourage that you access the “Advice for Editors” section in the eEditorial Discovery^® manuscript submission system.

It is the responsibility of the Editor(s)-in-Chief to regularly revisit the Call for Papers for the journal and make the necessary revisions to ensure its effectiveness.

Should the Editor(s)-in-Chief feel that the title of the journal would benefit from a change, they must go through the publisher. IGI Global reserves the right to change the title of a journal at any time.

• Distribute the call for papers and send personalized invitations to their colleagues and network.
• Utilize listservs to post their call for papers.
• Post the call for papers to relevant research community websites and/or their own personal webpages.
• Reach out to their review board to see if they would be willing to extend a call for papers to their own communities and colleagues and, as such, recruit authors for the journal.
• Recommend the journal to their institution’s library as the more visible the journal becomes, the better the likelihood of faculty and researchers submitting article manuscripts to the journal.

Should there be an issue with submissions, the development editor for the journal can conduct calls for papers and calls to past contributors of the journal to try and aid with submission numbers.

Should you need help increasing submissions and visibility for your journal, you can find several helpful resources here.

Editor(s) are free to invite papers from prominent researchers in the field or in their networks to publish in the journal. SInce these articles are coming from individuals that the editor knows and they are confident in their writing abilities, these articles do not have to go through the full peer review process. Instead, these articles can be reviewed by the Editor(s) of the journals personally. Invited Papers are also exempt from the Article Processing Charge after accepted, however, if the authors have anything to put towards the journal to aid with the sustainability of it, that is always welcome.

With that, in open access journals, IGI Global only allows two (2) invited papers to be accepted to publish per volume year.

Individuals appointed to a journal review board are performing an important and valuable job, assuring that the journal is being published with integrity and accuracy. Those currently serving on the review board are expected to review an average of 3-5 manuscripts per year. Occasionally, reviewers may be requested to complete evaluations for additional manuscripts in the event that the number of submissions suddenly increases or that the Editor(s)-in-Chief is/are in the midst of reforming the journal’s review board. All reviews must be conducted through the eEditorial Discovery® manuscript submission system and returned to the Editor(s)-in-Chief electronically by the assigned due date from the time the manuscript is received. Deadlines will be clearly stated in the review request with an expectation that completed reviews will be turned in within roughly seven (7) to ten (10) days.

Associate Editor

Associate Editors are individuals who have been recruited or promoted to the highest tier of active reviewer. These individuals are held to a higher standard to provide quality and timely reviews for the journal, but are also strongly encouraged to help the leadership of the journal recruit papers within the scope of the journal. Associate Editors are expected to complete 3-5 timely and quality reviews per year. When completing reviews for the journal, Associate Editors will have access to the completed Editorial Review Board and Ad-Hoc evaluations which they can assess to provide the leadership of the journal with a well rounded decision on the requested article.

Example of a Quality Associate Editor Evaluation

Editorial Review Board Member

Editorial Review Board Members are individuals who are full members of the review board. Their names are included on the journal website. These members are expected to complete 3-5 timely and quality reviews per year. Editors can evaluate the work of the Editorial Review Board Members to potentially promote them to be an Associate Editor for the journal. These individuals are part of the pool of reviewers for the first layer of the double-blind peer review process.

Example of a Quality Editorial Review Board Evaluation

Ad-Hoc

Ad-Hoc Reviewers are individuals who have shown interest in supporting the journal but need to serve in a "trial" period before becoming a full member of the review board. Upon the completion of 2-3 timely and quality reviews for the journal, the editors can then evaluate their work and potentially promote Ad-Hocs to Editorial Review Board status. Ad-Hoc reviews are part of the pool of reviewers for the first layer of the double-blind peer review process.

Example of a Quality Ad-Hoc Evaluation

*Note: It is at the Editor(s)' discretion on how they would like to manage their review board.

If the journal is lacking in reviewers or the diversity needs to be increased, it is the Editor(s)-in-Chief’s responsibility to conduct a call for reviewers. Each prospective reviewer will need to apply utilizing a reviewer application. The Editor(s)-in-Chief can then approve the application in the eEditorial Discovery® system. It’s very important that every reviewer appointed to serve as a full member of the review board or as an Ad-Hoc reviewer, that their consent is given through this application process.

The review board members who are formally listed on the journal’s webpage and in the physical journal are as follows:

• Editor(s)-in-Chief
• Managing Editors
• International Ambassadors
• International Advisory Board Members
• Associate Editors
• Editorial Review Board Members

Ad-Hoc reviewers are not listed on the websites or in the physical journals because the role of an Ad-Hoc reviewer is to serve the journal under a trial basis until they complete a few reviews and are evaluated by the Editor(s) to be promoted. Should an Ad-Hoc reviewer not complete reviews, they are promptly removed. There is oftentimes a rather large number of Ad-Hoc reviewers and including all of the names on the website will make the reviewer list look too long and cluttered and will likely lead individuals to believe that there is no selectivity in appointing review board members to the journal which can significantly harm the journal’s credibility and sustainability.

If the title of the journal has changed, it is the Editor(s)-in-Chief’s responsibility to contact the reviewers who served as reviewers on the former title and inquire if they would be willing to transition to the new title under its new scope. If they are, the Editor(s)-in-Chief can request that said person serve on the review board in the same standing they had under the former title. Editor(s)-in-Chief can manage this on their journal’s reviewer page.

Review boards must carry no less than eight (8) and no more than ten (10) Associate Editors (AEs) and no less than thirty (30) and no more than fifty (50) Editorial Review Board (ERB) members. The number of Ad-Hoc reviewers associated with the journal shall not exceed one hundred (100).

If the journal has several Ad-Hoc reviewers (upwards of 50-100), it is advised that the Editor(s)-in-Chief carefully evaluate the present review board and determine if there are any full Editorial Review Board (ERB) members who have not been completing reviews in a quality and timely manner and consider replacing them by promoting active Ad-Hoc reviewers to a full Editorial Review Board (ERB) member capacity. The same goes for Editorial Review Board (ERB) member promotions to Associate Editor (AE) status. It is advised that reviewers be promoted only after they have completed at least two reviews in a quality and timely manner. Manuscript review windows should not exceed one (1) month from the time that the manuscript was assigned to the reviewer. Should a review board member not respond to the review request, you may reassign more reviewers to the manuscripts that need them. If the reviewer is continually not responding to review requests, they should be promptly removed from the board.

If reviewers are not performing adequately, the Editor(s)-in-Chief has the right to remove the reviewers from the board. The reviewer dashboards within the eEditorial Discovery^® system can be a very helpful tool to monitor the progress of each reviewer. To access them, please visit the reviewer page, then under each reviewer there is a menu:

Actions:

Also, each individual review can be ranked in the system to get a sense of the quality and detail provided within each evaluation. Reviews are scored on both timeliness and quality. High quality and timely reviews are essential to a journal’s goal of publishing high quality work in a timely manner. Reviewers who complete high quality reviews in a timely manner are providing an essential service to the authors, the research field and to the journal.

It’s also important to ensure diversity across the review board and ensure that there is not an uneven ratio of reviewers located at the same universities, countries, etc. If a reviewer feels at any point that they are familiar with the identity of the author of the submitted work, they should notify the Editor(s)-in-Chief as soon as possible to make sure that the integrity of the double-blind review process is not compromised.

Periodically, it will be necessary for Editor(s)-in-Chief to update their review board for several reasons. Here are just a few:

1) Some reviewers will consistently not return reviews in a timely manner.

2) Some reviewers may resign due to workload or personal reasons.

3) Some reviewers over time may, unfortunately, not respond to requests for review.

4) If the review board has started to lack diversity.

It is recommended that Editor(s)-in-Chief conduct a full audit of their review board’s performance and diversity every few months.

Each review board member should be evaluated every six months. The timeliness, rigorousness, and quality of each review performed during that period should be considered. Exceptional performance should allow the reviewer to move up in the ranks of the review board. This means that when there is a vacancy, Editorial Review Board (ERB) members may be promoted to an Associate Editor (AE) role. Associate Editors (AEs) (or a highly qualified, tenured Editorial Review Board (ERB) member) may even have the potential to be appointed as Editor-in-Chief when there is a vacancy. Poor performance will lead to demotion and eventual removal from the board if the performance continues to decline.

Each of the criteria is scored on a scale from 1 to 5, and is as follows:
1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent

• Timeliness of Reviews (1 to 5)
• Responsiveness (1 to 5)
• Length of Reviews (1 to 5)
• Quality of Reviews (1 to 5)
• Overall Rating:
• 18 to 20 Points = High
• 12 to 17 Points = Average
• 4 to 11 Points = Low

IGI Global encourages that editors have monthly meetings with the established review board of the journal to go over the journal, the actions reviewers are taking to promote the journal and what could be improved with the editor's current process.

IGI Global will provide support to the auditing process of journal editorial review boards on a quarterly basis. This process will cover the following:

• Verifying reviewer's current affiliations
• Verifying the reviewer's current degree
• Verifying that the reviewer's research aligns with the scope of the journal
• Assessing the current diversity of the review board

IGI Global encourages the Editor(s)-in-Chief to audit the editorial board on a monthly basis. There should be a level of vigilance in the vetting process before any reviewer is formally added onto the editorial board. Editors are also strongly recommended to evaluate the review board member's previous completed evaluations for quality and consistency. The following criteria should be monitored by the editor:

• Ensuring reviewers have their complete affiliation information provided
• Ensuring reviewers are providing ethical, timely and quality evaluations
• Removing reviewers who are not supporting the journal
• Ensuring reviewers applying to the journal fit the scope of the journal's published research
• Ensuring that reviewers on the board are prominent in their field and/or have experience in the field to evaluate manuscripts accurately

IGI Global’s chosen manuscript submission system is eEditorial Discovery^®. The system supports with the editorial management of projects and streamlines the following areas:

• Launching a call for papers
• Submission of manuscripts
• Submission and project tracking (with dashboards that showcase the overall status of the journal)
• Storage of critical documents and information
• Communications (ability to send reminders to authors
  and reviewers)
• Quality assurance
• Assigning manuscripts for peer review (throughout all stages of the peer review process)
• Review board management (with dashboards that showcase the overall performance of the reviewers)
• Revision processing
• Author proofing
• Promotional material and content access

Every journal MUST be actively utilizing the eEditorial Discovery® system to manage submissions and perform peer reviews, with a zero-tolerance policy on publishing work that has not been fully vetted through the eEditorial Discovery® system. This means that every Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Reviewer, and Author will need to be fully logged in and active in the system. Hybrid use (working in and out of the system) will no longer be allowed. Should you have any questions regarding the system, please do not hesitate to contact the development editor of the journal.

Authors have the ability to track the movement of their article in the submission system as well. Working outside the system with the article not moving through the phases in the system creates a false pretense that the article is not actively being considered for the journal. This could lead to the author seeking an alternative publication under the impression that their article is not being considered and could ultimately lead to a higher percentage of withdrawn papers. There could be bad press following the journal as well after that which could deter authors from submitting, if that negative notion is present.

IGI Global has now implemented a range of weeks from submission to acceptance on our journal webpages to show authors how long they could potentially wait for a final decision. If the movement of the articles is done through submission system, the ranges from submission to acceptance will not be accurate or may not be able to be calculated at all. This not only could deter authors but could also mislead the indices, leading to a potential drop from their database or to their ultimate decision to not index the journal.

If an author is having trouble submitting their paper, please be sure that their document is in .docx format. Any other form of a document for their article cannot be uploaded into the system. Should they continue to have issues uploading their article in the system, please forward them to the development editor, and they should be able to help. It’s very important that authors submit their manuscripts through the system to ensure that the appropriate final versions are being used for publication, and so that they will have access to their proofs and complimentary content later.

Moving manuscripts in the system is important to ensure accuracy, quality, and timely processing. We will not accept any article manuscripts or finalized materials submitted to us by e-mail. Should you have any questions regarding the system, please ask your development editor and they will be able to help you navigate the system.

All authors submitting their work for consideration should be submitting their article manuscript as a Microsoft Word document in APA style. All submission guidelines and templates are found here.

Individuals added as authors to manuscripts should be aware of and consent to their role as author. There are two types of authors whose name should appear as an author of the manuscript. Acknowledged Authors are not listed as true authors on the manuscript and instead are noted at the end of the manuscript, typically being thanked for their support of the project, but not necessarily providing to the written research:

• Corresponding Author: In cases where more than one author writes a manuscript, one author will be designated as the corresponding author. This author handles communication with the Editor(s)-in-Chief, signs the publishing agreements on behalf of all the authors, proofs the final manuscript upon acceptance into the journal, and ensures that all author information, including affiliations and order, appear correctly.
• Co-Authors: An individual who has made a significant contribution to the manuscript in regards to the actual research (analysis and acquisition of data, study design, etc.) and writing (drafts, revisions, etc.) that were conducted. Co-authors should assist with and agree to revisions that take place during the double-blind peer review process as well as the final publishable manuscript.
• Acknowledged Authors: These individuals are not listed as part of the authors of the manuscript but are formally recognized in an Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. Such individuals may have provided technical assistance, translation assistance, general mentoring of the research, contributed general scholarly discussion on the topic, performed formatting-related writing assistance or copyediting services, etc. Corresponding and co-authors are responsible for notifying and securing permission from these individuals for their inclusion in the Acknowledgment section.

Authors submitting chapters that will be published as Open Access must sign an Author Warranty. The author's warranty portion ensures that materials submitted to IGI Global for consideration are original and have not been published elsewhere previously. Moreover, it ensures that any necessary permissions for the use of copyrighted materials (figures, photographs, etc.) are secured by the author(s) before publication. Open Access publications carry the CC BY 4.0 licensing arrangement. Under this licensing, authors and editors are allowed the freedoms below, so long as they give credit to the original author(s). IGI Global cannot publish the chapter until the warranty is signed. Should this fail to occur and the chapter becomes a liability to the timeliness of the book’s release, it may have to be removed from the book.

Authors should solidify the corresponding author, order of authors, and which authors should be included on a manuscript PRIOR to submitting the manuscript to a journal.

In cases where there needs to be a change in authorship DURING the manuscript’s publishing process, an email notification must be sent to the Editor(s)-in-Chief and shared with the publisher. All authors listed on the manuscript must agree to the change and must be included on the email for the changes to be made. Such changes can include switching corresponding authors, adding or removing authors, and reordering the authors.

Changes to authorship AFTER the manuscript has been accepted and/or published will be reviewed carefully on a case-by-case basis and are not guaranteed to be made, especially if there is no significant just cause for the change and/or not all authors are in agreement. Please note that if the content has already been released digitally and while IGI Global will resend corrected metadata to all partners, IGI Global cannot guarantee that all digital records will reflect the changes that were made and has no power over how quickly a third-party platform will make that change.

Affiliations should be formatted as:

Institution, Country

No departments or cities will be included in the affiliation unless included in the institution’s name.

Authors’ affiliations are the affiliations where the research was conducted. No changes to affiliations can be made after the paper is accepted. It is the responsibility of the author to ensure that their affiliation is entered correctly upon the manuscript’s submission and that should any change occur during the development of the manuscript, that it is communicated immediately to the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the publication’s development editor.

IGI Global has seen an increase of submitted article manuscripts with low quality figures. Figures in an article are meant to enhance certain research to improve the readability and comprehension of the article. If the figures are unreadable, it decreases the effect of the research that the author originally intended. IGI Global often catches these problems and reaches out to the authors personally to get better quality figures, however, as our publications continue to grow, IGI Global is now asking the Editor(s)-in-Chief of our timely publications to ensure that there are high quality figures uploaded before the publication of accepted articles.

Please see IGI Global's Image Guide for more information.

IGI Global has been keeping close watch on the advancement of the Manuscript Exchange Common Approach (MECA). IGI Global wants to ensure that authors who have had their article manuscripts reviewed previously, whether in another IGI Global Journal or from a different publisher, can cut time during the peer review by allowing editors to accept to consider the manuscript and previously received peer review evaluations and having access to all of the materials within the eEditorial Discovery Submission System.

Please note: This decision to accept to consider previously rejected papers in the same family or different publisher's publications is at the discretion of the editor-in-chief of the inquired journal. IGI Global requests that all editors who choose to assess and consider previously rejected articles and the previous peer review evaluations do ensure that the articles and evaluations are of the highest quality.

Editors are encouraged to review the recommended practice as provided by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO).

The Editor(s)-in-Chief is/are not permitted to request and/or pressure any author to incorporate citations from work published by the Editor(s)-in-Chief or any other leadership member of the journal. Should we learn of this happening IGI Global will have cause to take action against the Editor(s)-in-Chief in the form of a contract termination.

All new journal article submissions are submitted through the eEditorial Discovery® manuscript submission system and screened by the Editor(s)-in-Chief for suitability. Those that pass are then assigned to the double-blind peer review process. Authors of manuscripts that are rejected during the initial assessment (desk review) stage will be promptly notified.

During this phase, the Editor(s)-in-Chief are asked to assess the following:

• Anonymization of the manuscript.
• Suitability of the research to the journal.
• Country of origin of the authors (please see the United States Sanctions Section regarding authorship by those affiliated in Iran).
• Proper or legible formatting for the review process.
• Any additional criteria the editor would like to assess before the review phases.

In a double-blind peer review, both the reviewer and the author identities remain anonymous throughout the entire peer review process.

Step 1: Once an article manuscript is deemed suitable by the Editor(s)-in-Chief to enter the double-blind peer review process, it will be anonymized and assigned to at least three (3) to five (5) Editorial Review Board (ERB) Members (and if needed Ad-Hoc Reviewers) via the eEditorial Discovery^® manuscript submission system. The assignment of reviewers is based on the reviewers' areas of expertise. The reviewers’ expertise must align with the substance of the article manuscript. However, as mentioned previously, IGI Global does request that reviewers kindly keep in mind that from time-to-time they will likely be assigned article manuscripts that do not 100% align with their current research interests, but as an appointed reviewer we expect and appreciate their willingness to evaluate the article manuscript based on its adherence to the overall mission, scope, and coverage of the journal. The present workload of the reviewer is also considered (please refer to the previous “Reviewer Selection” section for full information).

Step 2: Once all Editorial Review Board (ERB) Member reviews and Ad-Hoc Reviewer reviews have been received, the Editor(s)-in-Chief will send the reviews to an Associate Editor (AE) for their evaluation of the article manuscript. Once the Associate Editor’s (AE’s) evaluation is received, the Editor(s)-in-Chief will determine whether the article manuscript is accepted, requires revision, or is rejected.

The specific questions provided to Associate Editors (AEs) within the AE Review Form include:

• In your opinion, what are the overall weaknesses of the article manuscript? Please carefully list at least three (3) specific weaknesses of this
  article manuscript.
• In your opinion, what are the overall strengths of this article manuscript? Please carefully list at least three (3) specific strengths of this
  article manuscript.
• Please provide any additional constructive comments to the author(s) for improving and revising the article manuscript.
• Your overall assessment of this article manuscript and the reviews obtained from the Editorial Review Board (ERB) Members of this journal.

Step 3: The Editor(s)-in-Chief will make the reviews available to the author(s) and the comments to the author(s) of the article manuscript are also made available to the other reviewers of the article manuscript so that they can continue to improve upon their critiquing skills.

Step 4: If the article manuscript is rejected, the process ends and the Editor(s)-in-Chief may recommend another outlet if appropriate. If the article manuscript is accepted without any revisions required, then the author(s) will be provided with the formatting guidelines for final submission. If the article manuscript requires substantial revisions, then the author(s) will be expected to follow the reviewers’ commentary and also the formatting guidelines for the re-submission of the article manuscript. The author(s) should provide detailed revision notes along with the revised manuscript outlining how they responded to the
reviewers’ comments.

Step 5: Once the revised article manuscript is received (if applicable) it will be sent back to the Associate Editor (AE) for evaluation, and then the Associate Editor’s (AE’s) decision will be sent to the Editor(s)-in-Chief. This process may repeat itself several times before a final decision is reached. If the article manuscript is rejected, then the process ends and the Editor(s)-in-Chief may recommend another outlet if appropriate.

Note: The return of an article manuscript to the author(s) for revision does not guarantee acceptance of the article manuscript for publication.

View the IGI Global’s full peer review process webpage and flow chart here.

Reviewers are given evaluation criteria and asked to provide anonymous comments to the author and may also provide confidential feedback to the Editor(s)-in-Chief.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:

• Originality and significance of contribution. Is the article manuscript in congruence with the mission and scope of the journal?
• Interest to research community and/or practitioners. How useful is the material to the field?
• International relevance.
• Coverage of existing literature. Does the literature review contain relevant information in support of the article manuscript?
• Satisfactoriness of methodology, analysis, and comprehension. Does the article manuscript contain a detailed explanation of research methods
  and procedures?
• Clear, concise, and jargon-free writing. Does the article manuscript clearly state the issues being addressed?
• Organizational structure. Is the article manuscript clearly organized in a logical fashion? Are the author’s conclusions supported by the research?

The specific questions provided to Editorial Review Board (ERB) Member Reviewers (and Ad-Hoc Reviewers) within the ERB Review Form include:

• Do you feel the article manuscript adequately adheres to the mission and scope of the journal? If no, how could this be improved?
• Do you feel that this topic is timely? If no, how could the topic become more relevant?
• Do you feel that the data presented and analyzed is adequate? If no, how could the data be better presented?
• On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the quality of research design? If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions for improvement.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the legitimacy of the conclusions formed within the article manuscript? If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions for improvement.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the practical and managerial significance of the work? If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions
  for improvement.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the clarity of the information presented? If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions for improvement.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the references used? Specifically, whether they are sufficient, appropriate, and up-to-date? If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions for improvement and please list a few reference sources that you recommend be utilized and cited.
• In your opinion, what are the overall weaknesses of the article manuscript? Please carefully list specific suggestions for improvement
  and/or enhancement.
• In your opinion, what are the overall strengths of the article manuscript?
• Please provide any additional constructive comments to the author(s) for improving and revising the manuscript.
• Your Editorial Decision (Accept, Accept After Specified Revisions, Reject)
• Overall Comments to the Editor(s)-in-Chief

Research article manuscripts that are under consideration for IGI Global journals shall not be formally accepted to publish in a journal without receiving a minimum of 2 non-conflicting reviews from the peer review process.

Certain submissions that IGI Global publishes in our journals that are not research articles are exempt from this minimum review requirement:

• Invited Papers
• Position Papers
• Book Reviews
• Case Studies
• Research Notes

When requesting article manuscript revisions from the authors, the due dates should not exceed one (1) month from the time that the revision request was sent. Should the author not get the revision in on time, it is important that the Editor(s)-in-Chief reach out to them to ensure that they get their revisions in and/or to confirm whether or not they are still interested in having their work considered for publication. Some authors will require an extension to get their revisions in. It is at the Editor(s)-in-Chief’s discretion whether or not the Editor(s)-in-Chief want to give them an extended deadline. Revisions should always be supplemented with revision notes that address the reviewers’ commentary.

The Editor(s)-in-Chief are requested to complete their editorial decisions in the relevant stages in no more than two (2) weeks. Authors submitting article manuscripts to the journal deserve to have their work move through the system and processes in a timely manner. This will ensure the journal is in good standing with the authors and ensure that they will consider publishing with the journal again and recommend the journal to their colleagues.

Please remember that having diversity in your journal is one of the many criteria that indexes look for. It is very important that the journal does not appear biased toward any specific demographic, country, university, etc.

• Editors are expected to be mindful of the university affiliations and country/regional representations that are appearing across each volume year and ensure that there is not an unbalanced ratio.
• Editors need to be mindful of the number of article manuscripts coming from the same individuals across the full volume year.
• Editors are expected to ensure that article manuscript submissions from the journal’s reviewers are not prioritized over other submissions and that there isn’t an exhaustive number of article manuscripts authored by reviewers within one volume year.
• Editors are expected to be mindful of the university affiliations and country/regional representations that are appearing across their Editorial Review Board Members and Associate Editors to ensure that there is not an unbalanced ratio.

Indexes support a journal when specific criteria is met. One of the criteria is selecting authors from diverse backgrounds, both culturally and by institution. If the selection committee at a prestigious indexing organization believes there to be any bias in the selection of article manuscripts for publication, the journal could be at risk of not being accepted into the index, or if already indexed, it could be pulled.

Also, we – IGI Global – collaborate with people from various disciplines from all over the world and from all different universities. These journals reach the far corners of the world and if the readers/subscribers see that some journals show favoritism to one or a few cultural backgrounds/universities over the rest, then the submissions and interest in the journal could greatly decrease.

The peer review process is at the core of reputable scholarly publishing and is the driving force behind all IGI Global books and journals. IGI Global reviewers maintain the highest ethical standards of scientific research and all manuscripts follow a double-blind peer review process that is fully conducted within the IGI Global eEditorial Discovery® manuscript submission system.

The reviews are then easily accessible to the IGI Global editorial staff which ensures that should accusations of questionable peer review arise, IGI Global will be able to support its published authors and editors in dismissing these claims and ensuring the continued success of the corresponding publications. View IGI Global’s full Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

As a publisher of scholarly articles and chapters, IGI Global realizes that fraud erodes the public trust and deeply affects the outcomes of all research results and findings reported within scholarly journals and academic reference books. As such, IGI Global mandates that a double-blind peer review process must be undertaken on each of its publications, including each chapter submission.

IGI Global follows a double-blind peer review process, which means that the authors of the chapter and the reviewers of the chapter remain anonymous to each other. It is at the discretion of the reviewer if they wish to reveal themselves to the authors after any and all revisions are made and a formal decision has been determined for the chapter by the editor.

The peer review process is at the core of reputable scholarly publishing and is the driving force behind all IGI Global books and journals. IGI Global reviewers maintain the highest ethical standards of scientific research and all manuscripts follow a double-blind peer review process that is fully conducted within the IGI Global eEditorial Discovery^® manuscript submission system.

The reviews are then easily accessible to the IGI Global editorial staff which ensures that should accusations of questionable peer review arise, IGI Global will be able to support its published authors and editors in dismissing these claims and ensuring the continued success of the corresponding publications. View IGI Global’s full Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

IGI Global Recommends that Editor(s)-in-Chief ensure that their reviewers are displaying their ORCiD iDs through their profile on the journal webpage. Having their IGI Global profile and ORCiD iD linked not only allows for those not affiliated with the journal to see at a glance the prestigious people who are serving on the board, but it also allows for reviewers to get instant credit for the evaluations that they are completing.

Learn more on how to link your IGI Global account with your ORCiD iD.

As a publisher of scholarly articles, IGI Global realizes that fraud erodes the public trust and deeply affects the outcomes of all research results and findings reported within scholarly journals. As such, IGI Global has taken on several measures to avoid such indiscretions:

• The Editor(s)-in-Chief of a journal is the only person responsible for the initial review of a submission to verify that it meets the coverage of the journal and also to ensure that authors’ names and affiliations are removed from the manuscript prior to assigning it for review.
• All Editor(s)-in-Chief of journals must utilize the eEditorial Discovery® manuscript submission system to assign reviewers to manuscripts. Likewise, all reviews must be submitted by the reviewers through the system. This allows a paper trail in the event a question arises surrounding the review process.
• Those Editor(s)-in-Chief of journals are still in a transition stage of moving all submitted manuscripts to the eEditorial Discovery^® manuscript submission system who may be assigning some reviews outside of the system, are asked to submit the reviewer’s evaluation form when providing an accepted manuscript to IGI Global for publication.

For all IGI Global publications, a double-blind peer review process must be conducted on any manuscript that is not desk rejected. For journal publications, no less than three (3) quality peer reviews should be obtained for each article manuscript. An ideal peer review secures (3) Editorial Review Board (ERB) Member reviews and one (1) Associate Editor (AE) review. We understand that some review boards may become unreliable at times and as such, the combination of two (2) non-conflicting ERB Member reviews along with one (1) AE review may also be considered.

Editor(s)-in-Chief should be utilizing all reviewers, even those who are in ad hoc standing and as such, we ask that Editor(s)-in-Chief please attempt to assign article manuscripts to a mixture of ERB Members and Ad-Hoc Reviewers during the ERB stage of peer review (prior to the AE stage of peer review). This ensures that the full review board is being utilized and will also allow Editor(s)-in-Chief to measure who is reliable.

When assigning reviewers for the ERB review stage, there should be enough reviewers assigned to secure at least three (3) reviews on each article manuscript, two (2) of which need to be non-conflicting in order to move the article manuscript forward. Should the Editor(s)-in-Chief only get two (2) ERB reviews and they are conflicting, the Editor(s)-in-Chief will need to assign more reviewers to the manuscript.

Once the manuscript moves into the AE stage of the peer review process, IGI Global only requires one (1) round of review by the AE before the article manuscript can be rejected, accepted, or revisions can be requested. It is advised that if revisions are requested at this stage, that the article manuscript once revised be sent back to the AE who performed the review, along with revision notes for them to assess.

The entire review process should take no more than 30 to 45 days. Should the reviewers' comments contradict each other or a report is delayed, an additional expert review should be sought. If necessary, revised article manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers (ERB Reviewers and/or Ad-Hoc Reviewers) for re-evaluation. The Editor(s)-in-Chief may require more than one revision of an article manuscript, and additional reviewers may also be invited to review an article manuscript at any time.

It is very important that the evaluators assigned to review journal articles showcase expertise and experience directly related to the article's topic. Those on the Review Board for the journal should demonstrate expert-level knowlege and be currently active in the journal's area of research.

Having individuals on the board or as reviewers who are not experts in the field is not helpful to the authors who receive an evaluation from them. Reviewers are expected to provide not only qualitative reviews in the form of grammar and formatting, but they are also expected to review the research as it is presented and provide feedback to the authors on how that research can be improved.

Having research areas included in the reviewer profile is helpful to the editor as they will then be able to paid submitted articles to the reviewers that fit the research topic of the article. Having relevant and up-to-date research areas included in the reviewer profile will help the editor pair the reviewer with articles that match the reviewer's expertise.

To update your profile, please log in to your IGI Global Portal and update your Research Areas of Expertise by clicking here.

The assignment of reviewers is based on the reviewers' areas of expertise that are included as part of the reviewer's profile for IGI Global. It is important to ensure that each reviewer has their information fully filled out to accurately pair them with submitted articles that are within their area of expertise. IGI Global does request that reviewers kindly keep in mind that from time-to-time they will likely be assigned manuscripts that do not 100% align with their current research interests, but as an appointed reviewer we expect and appreciate their willingness to evaluate the manuscript based on its adherence to the overall mission, scope, and coverage of the journal.

Ad-Hoc Reviewers and Editorial Review Board Members are part of the first layer of review, providing comments to the authors based on the current research, structure of the paper, English Language proficiency, credibility of the references, impact of the article, etc.

Associate Editors are the second layer of review, having the capacity to review not only the article but the completed evaluations during the first layer of review. Associate Editor's evaluations are expected to be completed to a higher level, speaking on behalf of the first layer of reviewers as well as the quality of the article.

At the end of each reviewer form, there will be a suggested decision that each reviewer can provide. This is for the editor's review to aid with making a decision on the article.

Individuals appointed as reviewers are performing an important and valuable job, assuring that an article manuscript is being published with integrity and accuracy. Serving as a reviewer is a key step and significant contributing factor in an individual’s academic career progression. This responsibility increases visibility, as well as an individual’s knowledge of current and novel research in the field. Reviewers are conducting a professional service for their colleagues to improve the quality of their work and the availability of advanced research in the field at large. Reviewers are also encouraged to act as ambassadors for IGI Global, sourcing potential authors and interest in their region.

Upon receipt of an article manuscript for review, reviewers are requested to carefully read each article manuscript, supporting their evaluation with relevant citations with the goal of helping the author(s) construct a more rigorous research work by providing constructive feedback, as well as an honest assessment of the value of the article manuscript. Reviewers are requested to provide their overall assessment of the work, followed by a specific list of comments. While grammatical corrections are valuable, the review must stretch beyond the use of punctuation, spelling, and language usage. Reviewers are not expected to copy edit, proofread, or translate the article manuscript, as the author is expected to have their work professionally copy edited prior to submission.

An appropriate evaluation includes an analysis of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, suggestions on how to make it more complete, relevant, and readable, as well as specific questions for the authors to address. Ultimately, providing advice that leads to action. Vague statements and no points of action do not provide goals for the authors and will hinder any subsequent revisions.

Reviewers are requested to avoid making derogatory and unprofessional comments. If a reviewer does not find the article manuscript to be publishable, they should still provide extensive comments regarding why the article manuscript is not acceptable and constructive directions for future submissions. A decision to “reject” the article manuscript, with no feedback to the author(s), does not help them advance their skills. Reviewers are also requested to provide specific page numbers and explicitly state the areas of the article manuscript to which they are referring, also providing relevant citations to the authors to improve the work. Also, assessing the tables, figures, and diagrams and providing further recommendations as needed.

This decision made by the reviewers shall not be edited by the leadership of the publication as it directly contrasts the ethical guidelines put in place by COPE regarding editing a review evaluation.

Reviewers have the opportunity to provide direct comments to the author on their manuscript by downloading the article and uploading the marked-up version on the reviewer form before submitting their evaluation.

*Note: Upon removal from the review board, or demotion to an Ad-Hoc reviewer, the name and affiliation of that reviewer will be automatically removed from the review board. It is at the Editor(s)' discretion on how they would like to manage their review board.

Individuals who hold a position on the review board for any IGI Global Journal can either be promoted or demoted depending on how they are supporting the journal at the time of evaluation by the editor.

Promotions

Promotions can occur when a reviewer has completed a minimum amount of evaluations for the journal they are serving on. These evaluations are required to be submitted in a timely manner and provide the author with quality feedback that helps them revise their work. The promotions can be awarded as follows:

If an Ad-Hoc reviewer has completed 2-3 timely and quality reviews, the editor can assess the work the reviewer has completed and potentially promote that individual to be an Editorial Review Board Member.

*Note: Ad-Hoc reviewers are not listed on the journal webpage. They are the lowest tier of reviewer, typically temporary reviewers for the journal. Once an Ad-Hoc is promoted to the Editorial Review Board, their name and affiliation will appear on the journal's website.

If an Editorial Review Board Member has completed 3-5 timely and quality reviews, the editor can assess the work the reviewer has completed and potentially promote that individual to be an Associate Editor.

There is no way to formally promote Associate Editors to a higher role, but, with the consent of the Editor and the Associate Editor, IGI Global can manually promote them to be on the International Advisory Board or International Ambassador Board for the journal. These boards do not directly aid with the double-blind peer review process and instead aid with the distribution and relevancy of the research for the journal.

Editorial Review Board Members, Associate Editors, International Advisory Board Members and International Ambassadors are the only roles for the review board that appear on the journal webpage.

Demotions or Removals

Demotions can occur when a reviewer is not supporting the journal. The most common reason for an individual to be demoted or removed from the review board is inactivity or non-completion of the review requests that are sent to them from the editor of the journal. Demotions can happen as follows:

If an Associate Editor is continually not returning evaluations or is continually not providing quality feedback in their evaluations, the editor(s) of the journal can demote the individual to an Editorial Review Board Member. If the individual continues not to adjust how they complete reviews or if they continue not to return evaluations, they can be demoted again to Ad-Hoc.

The same process can be used for Editorial Review Board Evaluators, except they only have one chance to be demoted if they are not completing evaluations or not providing quality feedback.

Removals can happen at any time. If you know that an individual has changed their email or if the individual has asked to be removed from the review board, editors can remove that individual outright from the review board with the "remove reviewer" option on the manage reviewers page.

*Note: Upon removal from the review board, or demotion to an Ad-Hoc reviewer, the name and affiliation of that reviewer will be automatically removed from the review board. It is at the Editor(s)' discretion on how they would like to manage their review board.

Sample ERB Review

Sample AE Review

Because IGI Global is an accepted full member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and takes pride in a rigorous double-blind peer review process, it is very important that each and every journal is managed within the eEditorial Discovery® system and maintains the highest level of accuracy and integrity. Every journal must have full review documentation for every published article. Should the journal ever be called into question for its peer review practices, it’s very important that the editorial team at IGI Global have access to all article manuscripts submitted for consideration to the journal and supporting peer reviews. Proof of peer review is extraordinarily important especially as predatory publishers and vanity presses are conducting questionable peer review practices. If a manuscript is authored by a prestigious individual that was carefully invited and vetted by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and deemed an “Invited Paper”, the Editor-in-Chief is encouraged to notify IGI Global immediately as the peer review process on these entries will differ.

For more information, please view our Ethics and Malpractice Page.

IGI Global has a dedicated abstracting/indexing team that when a journal is eligible and meets all of the selection criteria requirements (established for at least two years, on time, has diversity across its submissions and review board, etc.), they will submit an application to the appropriate database. At no time should the Editor(s)-in-Chief submit the application because this could cause the journal to be suspended.

IGI Global submits journals for consideration to the following abstracting and indexing databases and directories:

• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
• Web of Science™ - Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)
• Web of Science™ - Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
• Web of Science™ - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)
• Scopus^®
• Ei Compendex
• PsycINFO^®
• ProQuest ABI/Inform
• ACM Digital Library
• ProQuest Aluminium Industry Abstracts
• Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
• Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC)
• Australian Education Index
• Australian Government’s Department of Education, Science & Training – Refereed Journal
• Burrelle’s Media Directory
• Business Periodicals Index/Wilson Business Abstracts
• Cabell’s Directories
• ProQuest Ceramic Abstracts
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
• ProQuest Computer & Information System Abstracts
• ProQuest Corrosion Abstracts
• CSA Civil Engineering Abstracts
• CSA Illumina
• CSA Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts
• Current Contents^®/Engineering Computing, & Technology
• Current Contents^®/Social & Behavioral Sciences
• DBLP
• DEST Register of Refereed Journals
• EBSCOhost’s Academic Search
• EBSCOhost’s Academic Source
• EBSCOhost’s Business Source
• EBSCOhost’s Computer & Applied Sciences Complete
• EBSCOhost’s Computer Science Index
• EBSCOhost’s Computer Source
• EBSCOhost’s Current Abstracts
• EBSCOhost’s Executive Daily Brief
• EBSCOhost’s Library/Information Science & Technology Abstracts with FullTEXT
• EBSCOhost’s Science & Technology Collection
• EBSCOhost’s STM Abstracts
• EconLit
• Electronics & Communications Abstracts
• Emerald Abstracts
• Engineered Materials Abstracts
• ERIC – Education Resources Information Center
• European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH)
• Gale Directory of Publications & Broadcast Media
• Genamics
• GetCited
• Google Scholar
• HCIBIB
• IAOR Online
• IndexCopernicus
• Information Science Abstracts
• International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
• Internet & Personal Computing Abstracts
• ISBIB
• JournalTOCs
• KnowledgeBoard
• LearnTechLib
• Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)
• Library Literature & Information Sciences
• ProQuest Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)
• Materials Business File – Steels Alerts
• MediaFinder
• Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD)
• ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Journals
• ProQuest Biological Science Journals
• ProQuest Computer Science Journals
• ProQuest Education Journals
• ProQuest Engineering Journals
• ProQuest Illustrata: Natural Science
• ProQuest Illustrata: Technology
• ProQuest Materials Science Journals
• ProQuest Military Collection
• ProQuest Natural Sciences Journal
• ProQuest SciTech Journals
• ProQuest Technology Journals
• ProQuest - ABI/Inform
• ProQuest Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS International)
• PubList.com
• RePEc
• Research Library
• SCIRUS
• Solid State & Superconductivity Abstracts
• The Index of Information Systems Journals
• The Informed Librarian Online
• The Standard Periodical Directory
• Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
• VINITI-Russian Academy of Science
• Worldwide Political Abstracts (WPSA)

Should you want to have your journal submitted for consideration to an abstracting or indexing database that is not listed, please contact the journal’s development editor.

View more information on abstracting and indexing here.

All the points above are meant to provide important guidelines and best practices to ensure that each and every gold open access journal published by IGI Global receives the highest level of recognition and meets all ethical standards.

It’s important to note that in order to ensure the greatest success for a journal, Editor(s)-in-Chief should maintain a healthy dialogue with their journal’s development editor on the status of the journal and submissions within the system. Telling the development editor their intentions, the tentative dates that content will be completed, or even something as simple as telling them that they have assigned a few manuscripts out for review will greatly help. This lets the development staff know that the Editor(s)-in-Chief is/are actively attempting to keep the journal in a healthy state.

We have recently seen increasing claims from different entities that books and/or journals will be guaranteed to be indexed in specific indices upon publication. Upon discussion with our contacts at various indexes, we can confirm that every book and journal must go through an evaluation process by the index upon the publication and that there is never a guarantee that a book or journal will be indexed. Individuals or entities claiming that a book or journal is guaranteed to be indexed should be treated with suspicion and their adherence to ethical publishing called into question.

Any IGI Global editor or author claiming that their book or journal is guaranteed to be indexed in a specific index, especially in order to garner more submissions, will face a thorough investigation from IGI Global and potentially be removed from their leadership position.

IGI Global is happy to help coach editors and authors with ways in which to maximize the indexing potential of their books or journal to increase their chances of being indexed in the future.

Should you have any additional questions that were not laid out in this document, please feel free to contact the development editor for your journal and they will gladly answer any questions you have.

Frequently Asked Questions