Editor Decision

The decision to accept manuscripts at 'CrossLink Studies' is reserved for the academic editor following the peer review, contingent upon the receipt of at least two reports from reviewers. This responsibility falls to an academic editor, which could be the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor, Topic Editor, Collection Editor, or another appropriate member of the Editorial Board. Guest Editors, Topic Editors, and Collection Editors are precluded from making decisions on their submissions, with these tasks delegated to a fitting Editorial Board member. In their decision-making process, academic editors are expected to evaluate:

• The appropriateness of the chosen reviewers;
• The relevance and thoroughness of the reviewers' feedback and the authors' replies;
• The manuscript's overall scientific merit.

The academic editor has several decisions at their disposal: to accept as is, accept with minor adjustments, reject without the option of resubmission, reject but suggest resubmission, request revisions from the author, or seek another reviewer's opinion.

Academic editors are urged to notify the Editorial Office about any possible conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their impartiality. Further information on 'CrossLink Studies' conflict of interest guidelines for academic editors is available at CrossLink Studies Ethics Policy.

While reviewers provide their recommendations, Editors-in-Chief or academic editors have the autonomy to diverge from these suggestions, provided they offer a rationale to support their decision for the enlightenment of both authors and reviewers.

There are occasions when an academic editor may advocate for the acceptance of a manuscript despite a recommendation for rejection from reviewers. In such instances, 'CrossLink Studies' will procure a secondary, independent review (a double decision) from another Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief, which will then constitute the conclusive decision.

Only an academic editor is authorized to greenlight a manuscript for publication, after which 'CrossLink Studies' personnel communicate the decision to the authors. It is important to note that the staff of 'CrossLink Studies', including members of the Editorial Board and Editors-in-Chief, do not partake in the decision-making process for their scholarly contributions. Such submissions are evaluated and decided upon by independent reviewers and Editorial Board members without conflicts of interest.

'CrossLink Studies' commits to the principles outlined in the 2012 San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), focusing on publishing scientifically valid research without manipulating rejection rates, thereby letting the broader scientific community assess the significance of the work.