Editorial Process and Quality Control

Quality is the basis and core of sustainable scholarly publishing. LIDSEN is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), following its Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing to manage journals. From submission to publication, LIDSEN journals implement a standardized editorial process and comprehensive quality control procedures. All articles, except Editorial or Interview, published in LIDSEN journals undergo rigorous pre-check, peer review and editorial decision. Editorial and Interview are checked by Editor-in-Chief or one Editorial Board member instead of standard peer review.

Though being rigid in process and strict in quality, we aim to provide a friendly, fluent and fast service to authors. Authors have a number of opportunities to submit rebuttals against review comments or editorial decision. We take immediate action in response to authors’ inquiries or requests.

Editorial Process

The overall editorial procedures are shown in the following flow chart:


We start pre-check as soon as we receive a submission. We check:

  • Whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal;
  • Whether the information regarding authorship is reliable;
  • Whether presentation meets our selection standards;
  • Whether required information regarding research ethics is included in the manuscript;
  • Whether the manuscript potentially suffers plagiarism.

Manuscripts of low quality, or with false author information, or proven plagiarism, or lack of any required information will be rejected directly. Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation will be sent to independent reviewers for peer review.

Peer Review

Peer review is thus far the best practice and most important procedure to hunt problems in and contribute suggestions to manuscripts. A journal is not a court that adjudicates a study or a group, but a free forum that provides an opportunity for scholars to equally discuss a topic and broaden a thinking.

Authors may recommend potential reviewers if they wish in order to enrich our review pool. It is at the Editor(s)’ discretion whether to invite the recommended reviewer(s) to review the manuscript. Authors should not suggest colleagues working in the same institution or other recent collaborators due to conflict of interest. Authors should provide reviewers’ institutional email address where possible. Intentionally falsifying information, for example, suggesting a reviewer with a false name or email address, will result in rejection of this manuscript as well as future submission from the same group.

Academic Editors, like the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors, can also suggest reviewer(s) during pre-check. Alternatively, editorial staff will use our reviewer pool to select suitable scholars.

When inviting reviewers, editorial staff will check and make sure that:

  • The reviewers' information is valid and reliable;
  • The reviewers are qualified considering expertise and research background;
  • The reviewers and authors have no potential conflict of interests.

LIDSEN journals execute single-blinded peer review which means reviewers are anonymous. If interested, after a paper is published, the reviewers can contact the authors for further discussion or future collaboration. Usually, reviewers are given two weeks to complete their review. Extensions might be granted on request. At least two independent review reports are collected for each manuscript.


In cases where only minor revisions are recommended, the authors are usually requested to revise the paper before resubmitting it to the Academic Editor. Manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers again after author revision, depending on whether the reviewer requested to check the revised version. Usually we allow at most two rounds of major revision per manuscript.

Editor Decision

Decisions can only be made by external Academic Editors (Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editor, an Editorial Board member if the former has conflicts of interest with authors, the Guest Editor if the manuscripts are submitted to the special issue he/she edits, the Collection Editor if the manuscripts are submitted to the collection he/she edits).

When making a decision, Academic Editors check:

  • Whether the reviewers are qualified and suitable to review the manuscript;
  • Whether the reviews were thorough and comments are adequate;
  • Whether the authors have properly responded to reviewers’ comments;
  • Whether the manuscript now meets the standard for publication.

Academic Editors will check again at this stage whether the manuscript contains plagiarism.

The Academic Editor will make a decision on a paper comprehensively based on all review comments. They can accept, reject, or ask the authors for revisions. Academic Editors can make a decision that conflicts with the reviewers, in which occasion, they must justify their decision.

If a manuscript is rejected, authors have an opportunity to appeal or complain the decision by contacting the Managing Editor of the journal. Subsequent procedures will be taken at once.

Production, Proofreading and Publication

Production process contains layout editing, language editing and conversion to other formats for indexing purpose. This process are carried out by our internal professional editors. Only extensive language editing service will be charged if authors confirmed the need. We encourage authors to seek help from native English speaker colleagues prior to our free-of-charge language editing. Before final publication, authors have a last chance to proofread the final version and only make minor necessary corrections. LIDSEN recognizes the published article as the Final Version of Record. Therefore, we encourage authors to proofread the final version carefully to avoid corrections after the papers are published online.

Post-publication Discussions and Corrections

Debate post-publication is allowed on the journal website, through Letter to Editor or Comment. The journal encourages you to contact the Editorial Office when you identify errors and ethical issues in a published article. The Editorial Office will carefully investigate and address it following the COPE guidelines and update the published article when necessary.

Any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notice, such as a Correction, a Retraction, an Expression of Concern, a Comment and Reply and in rare circumstances a Removal, that will be permanently linked back to the original article. All these notices will be published for free. Please visit our full policy on updating published papers.

Quality Control

Quality of Editors

LIDSEN editors, both internal or external, editorial or academic, are all required to closely adhere to publishing ethics, comply with standardized editorial and evaluation process. We only select widely recognized and leading scholars in the research community to join in our Academic Editor team. For transparency, all editors’ image, name, institute and position in the journal are listed on the page of Editorial Board. All their responsibilities are fully and clearly introduced at the very beginning of participation.

Quality of Reviewers

When selecting reviewers, we carefully check and make sure: (1) the reviewers’ expertise is suitable for the manuscript; (2) the reviewers’ research background is qualified to review the manuscript, usually a PhD or MD degree is necessary; (3) the reviewers should have publishing experience in the same field; (4) there is no conflict of interest between reviewers and the authors. We check each single reviewer before sending an invitation.

Quality of Peer Review

For LIDSEN journals, peer review is single-blinded, so that reviewers can comment straightforward; peer review is independent, so that reviewers do not influence each other and can make the most objective recommendations. When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are aided and guided by an online evaluation report system that covers all the key points that reviewers need to assess and comment. Peer review is supervised and review comments are checked by Academic Editors.

Quality of Editor Decision

Only external Academic Editor can make decisions. Academic Editor positions are voluntary and honorary. The number of accepted papers does not increase their income. Academic Editors are required to avoid conflict of interest with the authors. For transparency, Academic Editor’s name is listed on the papers that they accepted.

Quality after Publication

LIDSEN journals all publish in Open Access model, meaning that once a paper is published online, it is open to the public. Anyone can get access to the full text without any barrier, so that they can check and re-examine the papers easily and freely. If there is any question concerning a paper, LIDSEN journals welcome comments and suggestions, or Letter to Editor. If there is serious scientific or ethical concerning, we will start investigation and take actions immediately; if proven, we will initiate correction or retraction procedure.

Publishing Standards and Guidelines

LIDSEN follows the following guidelines and standards for its journals:

COPE: LIDSEN is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We strictly adhere to the code of publication ethics set forth by COPE. Submitted papers will be carefully considered following the Research and Publication Ethics Guidelines and suspected ethical issues will be dealt with following COPE's Core Practices.

ICMJE: Medically related LIDSEN journals follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The guidelines comprehensively cover all aspects of editing, from how the journal is managed to details about peer review and handling complaints. The majority of the recommendations are not specific to medical journals and are followed by all LIDSEN journals.

TOP covers transparency and openness in the reporting of research. Our journals aim to be at level 1 or 2 for all aspects of TOP. Specific requirements vary between journals and can be requested from the editorial office.

FAIR Principles provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse of digital assets.

Reporting Guidelines: Authors are encouraged to follow the consensus-based discipline’s guidelines to report their studies. Examples include:

CONSORT covers reporting of randomized, controlled trials. We encourage authors to verify their work against the checklist and flow diagram and upload them with their submission.

PRISMA covers systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors are recommended to complete the checklist and flow diagram and include them with their submission.

ARRIVE contains guidelines for reporting in vivo experiments. Authors are recommended to verify their work against the checklist and include it with their submission.

Compliance with the standards and guidelines above will be taken into account during the final decision and any discrepancies should be clearly explained by the authors. We recommend that authors highlight relevant guidelines in their cover letter.