Purpose and Scope
This procedure explains how editorial decisions are made and recorded in the Hed‑Core Academic Commons Journal, and how publication records are created, stored, and managed from initial submission through to publication, correction, withdrawal, or retraction.
It puts into practice the commitments in the Journal Charter and aligns with the Commons’ frameworks on editorial independence, research integrity, privacy, governance, and complaints. It applies to all submissions and articles published in the Journal.
Decision types and what they mean
The Journal uses a small set of clear decision types so that authors, editors, and reviewers share a common understanding of what each outcome means.
The primary decision types are:
- Decline without review
The submission is not sent for peer review, for example because it is out of scope or raises serious integrity concerns. - Send for review
The submission passes editorial check and is sent for peer review or editorial review. - Accept
The submission is accepted for publication, with or without minor edits. - Revise (minor)
The submission requires minor changes before acceptance. - Revise (major)
The submission requires substantial changes and may be re‑reviewed. - Reject
The submission is not accepted for publication. - Withdrawn by author
The author withdraws the submission during the process. - Retracted
A published article is retracted due to serious issues (see the Correction/Retraction Procedure).
In addition, OJS uses internal statuses such as “Under editorial check”, “With editor”, and “With reviewer” to track workflow progress. These are not decision types visible to authors, but they help editors manage the process.
How editorial Decisions are Recorded
All editorial decisions must be recorded in OJS by the responsible editor. This ensures that there is a clear, auditable trail of how and why each decision was made.
For each decision, the editor must record:
- The decision type.
- The date of decision.
- Key reasons for the decision (concise but sufficient to justify the outcome).
- Reviewer recommendations (where applicable).
- Any conditions (for example, required revisions or corrections before publication).
Decision letters to authors must be respectful and clear. They should summarize the main reasons for the decision, include reviewer comments where appropriate, and explain next steps (for example, how to submit a revision, or that the decision is final).
Editors must not disclose reviewer identities where the review model requires anonymity, and must not include discriminatory, hostile, or personal comments in decision records or letters.
Publication Records
For each published article, the Journal maintains a complete publication record. This serves both as a public record of what was published and as an internal record of how the article moved through the system.
The metadata record in OJS includes:
- Title, authors, and affiliations.
- Abstract and keywords.
- Publication date.
- Article type.
- License.
- DOI (if assigned).
- Links to supplementary files and the Repository record.
The decision history records:
- Submission date.
- Review invitations and completions.
- Revision rounds.
- Acceptance date.
- Publication date.
Where applicable, the correction/retraction history records:
- Links to correction notices, expressions of concern, or retraction notices.
Publication records must be accurate and complete, consistent with the Author Guidelines and Peer‑Review Procedure and maintained in line with privacy and data‑protection requirements.
Access, Confidentiality, and Retention
Access to editorial decision records is restricted to authorized editorial role holders and to Commons Administration and Governance Authority role holders where necessary for oversight, complaints, or review.
Submission and review records are treated as confidential. Personal data about authors and reviewers is handled in line with the Privacy, Data, Consent, and Confidentiality framework.
Editorial and publication records are retained for as long as the article is publicly available, and for a reasonable period thereafter to support accountability and historical record. Specific retention periods are defined in internal records management procedures.
How Records are used for Review and Complaints
Editorial records may be used for internal quality assurance and monitoring, for responding to complaints, reviews, and appeals about editorial decisions or review conduct, and for investigations into research or publication misconduct.
When records are accessed for complaints or reviews, access is limited to those directly involved in handling the matter, and confidentiality and privacy are maintained as far as possible.
See Also