International Journal of Hindu Studies - Guidelines for Special Issues or Themed Issues

International Journal of Hindu Studies

Special Issues

Special issues (or theme issues) are sets of closely related papers that are considered of sufficient importance to be published as a group. Frequently, special issues consist of invited manuscripts written specifically to focus on aspects of emerging sub disciplines or issues in the field of Hindu Studies, which the editor would like to showcase. Other special issues may highlight papers from particularly meritorious conference sessions that were not published as proceedings. Special issues should be carefully chosen, ideally to benchmark the state of the art of the sub discipline they represent within Hindu Studies.

Most special issues are guided by a special issue editor (or editors), whose duty is to knit the contributions into a coherent whole. The special issue editor is also responsible for working closely with the journal editor to ensure that every paper in the special issue receives the same rigorous double-blind review and meets the same submission requirements as every other article published in the International Journal of Hindu Studies (IJHS).

Proposals should be submitted to the journal editor by email: Professor Sushil Mittal, James Madison University at mittalsx@jmu.edu (this opens in a new tab).

Role of the Special Issue Editor

The special issue editor functions like the journal editor, overseeing the development and review of articles for the special issue. The planning stages will normally involve both the journal editor and special issue editor.

Special issue editors, while replacing the journal editor in the editorial process, need to comply with the Publisher’s Code of Conduct as described here (this opens in a new tab).

Duties of the Special Issue Editor

Working in conjunction with the journal editor, the special issue editor develops a timeline for acquiring and reviewing manuscripts and for producing the special issue.

Once the timeline is established, the special issue editor invites authors to submit manuscripts and provides authors with instructions for manuscript preparation and a production schedule with deadlines. Failure to comply with submission instructions will delay assignment of manuscripts to reviewers.

As authors complete their manuscripts in accordance with the journal’s guide, they will submit them as PDF and Word document files without any author identification to the special issue editor, who will coordinate and oversee their peer review. Note that when special issue editors are submitting manuscripts for the special issue, their papers must be assigned to the journal editor or the special issue co-editor, if any, for review.

During review and acceptance of papers, the special issue editor is responsible for the following tasks:

• Selecting two or three reviewers for each manuscript, according to the journal’s custom. With three reviewers, split decisions are avoided because there is always a tie-breaking review. Soliciting three reviews can tie up more reviewers than necessary, however. Reviewers should be given a deadline for submission of their reviews.
• Obtaining prompt reviews—the journal aims to have reviews performed in 4 to 6 weeks. The special issue editor will use the journal’s standard manuscript evaluation sheet, thereby ensuring that reviews are prepared in proper format and to facilitate their response.
• Checking reviews to see that reviewers followed the journal’s policies and procedures, and evaluating the results. Two positive reviews are required to accept a paper, and two negative reviews to reject it.
• Submitting an Editor’s summary review that is consistent with the individual reviews for each manuscript. Decisions will be emailed to the journal editor. The decision package for each paper should include the summary review, individual reviews, and any marked manuscripts for transmission to the author.
• After review of this material by the journal editor, the editor will inform the special issue editor to send the (edited) reviews and any marked manuscripts to the author for preparing and submitting a revised or final manuscript.
• The special issue editor will forward revised or final manuscripts to the journal editor, along with the author’s response to the reviewer’s criticisms and the special issue editor’s response to the revision, for a final decision.
• Once accepted in final form, the special issue editor sends the acceptance notification.
• Arranging re-review of manuscripts, when necessary. The special issue editor will forward revised manuscripts to the journal editor, along with the author’s response to the reviewers’ criticisms, for a final decision.

Special issue editors have one final task: writing an introductory paper that identifies the special issue’s purpose and describes how the papers fit the theme. This introductory paper should review the current state of knowledge on the topic, explain how the issue’s contents advance that knowledge, and point out needed or likely future lines of research.

Scheduling Publication

Once all the manuscripts for a special issue are in final form, journal editor will schedule a publication date. All manuscripts must be in final form before the special issue can be scheduled to avoid the risk of a special issue failing to materialize at the last minute, thus requiring the hasty substitution of replacement papers.

Appendix - Publisher’s Code of Conduct

In this Appendix the term “Journal” shall mean the journal for which the Editor-in-Chief is editorially responsible.

COPE

1. The Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to follow the COPE guideline entitled Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

2. The Publisher has responsibility to ensure that journals published by the Publisher adhere to editorial and publication ethics standards recommended by COPE, and the Publisher will support Editor(s)-in-Chief in their pursuit of adhering to such COPE standards. When dealing with publication and research ethics issues, Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to follow COPE guidance and flowcharts or any guidance provided by the Publisher. The final course of action should be decided by the Editor(s)-in-Chief. In difficult cases, or where there is no existing COPE guidance, the Editor(s)-in-Chief may seek advice from the Publisher, and some cases may need to be resolved in collaboration between Editor(s)-in-Chief and the Publisher. The Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and general guidelines and flowcharts are available from the COPE website (http://publicationethics.org (this opens in a new tab)).

3. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to be aware of the editorial policies and information provided for authors by the Journal.

4. If there is more than one Editor-in-Chief for the Journal, it is understood that the responsibility concerning Editorship of the Journal is shared between them.

Peer review

5. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to comply with the Journal’s peer review policy (e.g. open, single- blind, double-blind).

6. Peer review is an essential component of the research publication. It aims to assess the validity of the reported research and suitability for journals’ scope and aims. In order to maintain the integrity of the published record the Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to ensure that all manuscripts reporting primary research, or secondary analysis of primary research, accepted for publication in the Journal are peer reviewed by reviewers who are competent in a relevant field and/or have expertise in a relevant methodology, as judged by their publication record, and are free of potential bias. Such bias includes, but is not limited to, any recent collaboration between the peer reviewers and the authors of the manuscript. The requirement for Editor(s)-in-Chief to ensure absence of conflicts of interest amongst peer reviewers expressly applies to peer reviewers suggested by the authors of the manuscript.

7. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s)-in-Chief may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out in section 8 below.

8. Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a scientific rationale for the recommendations.

9. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.

10. Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without two peer review reports. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s)-in-Chief if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s)-in-Chief; if the topic is not in area of expertise of the Editor(s)-in-Chief, such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.

Manuscript handling

11. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to provide a professional service to authors. Correspondence should be handled in a timely and professional manner. Arrangements should be in place to ensure editorial staff absences do not result in a reduced service to authors.

12. Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to make full use of the online submission and peer-review system provided by the Publisher and, where necessary, maintain offline tracking systems, in order to preserve a full record of the peer review of each manuscript, where offline tracking is used, Editor(s)-in-Chief should upload offline records to the online submission and peer-review system as soon as possible.

Confidentiality

13. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to respect and uphold the confidential status of materials submitted to the Journal and should ensure that material remains confidential while under review.