1. Special Issues & Collections
Special Issues
A Special Issue is a collection of articles organized around a specific topic within a single journal. It is managed by Guest Editors with relevant expertise and follows the same editorial, peer-review, and publication ethics standards as regular journal content.
Collections
A Collection brings together articles around a shared research topic. It may be established in one or more POLYMAS journals, is managed by Collection Editors, and follows the same editorial, peer-review, and publication ethics standards as regular journal content.
2. Propose a Special Issue or Collection
1. Purpose and Scope
These guidelines set out the procedures for proposing, reviewing, and approving Special Issues and Collections for POLYMAS journals. They are intended to safeguard academic value, editorial independence, the quality of peer review, and publication integrity.
These guidelines apply to scholars and editorial teams seeking to propose or organize a Special Issue or Collection for a POLYMAS journal, or to serve as a Guest Editor (GE) or Collection Editor (CE).
All proposals are subject to review by the Editorial Office and the relevant journal’s academic editors. Approval authorizes the proposed topic and editorial team to organize and manage the Special Issue or Collection; it does not constitute a commitment to accept or publish any prospective or submitted manuscript
2. Eligibility
Special Issues and Collections may be proposed by experts invited by the journal or submitted independently by qualified scholars. Applicants wishing to serve as a GE/CE should normally meet the following criteria:
Hold a PhD (or equivalent degree) and an academic or research position at a university, research institute, or other professional research organization;
Maintain an active and sustained research profile in the proposed topic area, with a publication record relevant to the field;
Have recognized expertise and academic standing in the relevant research area, together with a professional network that can support manuscript solicitation and peer review, including prospective authors and reviewers;
Be willing to contribute actively to the solicitation of high-quality submissions, coordination of peer review, and academic management of the Special Issue or Collection, while upholding the journal’s and POLYMAS’s standards for academic quality, publication ethics, and editorial independence.
Depending on the discipline, the nature of the proposed topic, and the journal’s development needs, POLYMAS and the relevant journal may set additional requirements regarding the GE/CE’s subject expertise, academic qualifications, editorial experience, and team composition.
For early-career researchers who have appropriate subject expertise but limited editorial experience, POLYMAS may, where appropriate, recommend co-editing the Special Issue or Collection with a scholar who has more extensive academic or editorial experience.
3. Proposal Requirements
Applicants should submit a Special Issue or Collection proposal using the template provided by POLYMAS or the relevant journal. As a general rule, the proposal should include the following information:
3.1 Basic Information
Proposed title;
POLYMAS journal in which the Special Issue or Collection is proposed;
Type of initiative (Special Issue or Collection);
Proposed submission deadline and indicative timeline.
3.2 Topic Overview
Research background and the academic rationale for the proposed topic;
Current research progress, emerging trends, and the key scientific questions to be addressed;
The expected academic contribution of the Special Issue or Collection to the field.
3.3 Scope and Keywords
A clear description of the main research areas to be covered by the call for papers;
Keywords that accurately reflect the proposed scope;
Representative research questions or subtopics, where appropriate.
3.4 GE/CE Team Information
Names, affiliations, and contact details;
Research interests and relevant expertise in relation to the proposed topic;
Official institutional profile, ORCID, or other verifiable academic profile;
Representative scholarly contributions or editorial experience relevant to the topic.
3.5 Prospective Authors and Sources of Submissions
Researchers who may be invited or are considered potential contributors, together with their affiliations;
Provisional manuscript titles or research topics, where known;
The anticipated number of submissions and the principal channels through which submissions may be attracted.
Prospective authors listed in the proposal are included solely to help assess the feasibility of the Special Issue or Collection and the potential submission base. Their inclusion does not constitute an invitation to submit, a commitment to accept a manuscript, or a guarantee of publication. All manuscripts must undergo the journal’s standard editorial screening and peer-review process.
4. Topic, Scope, and Originality
The proposed Special Issue or Collection should have a clearly defined, focused, and academically meaningful theme that is consistent with the Aims & Scope of the relevant journal. The assessment will consider, in particular:
Whether the topic addresses an active or rapidly developing area of research;
Whether it addresses questions of significant scientific, technological, or interdisciplinary importance;
Whether it reflects new theories, methods, technologies, applications, or emerging research directions in the field;
Whether the scope is clearly defined and sufficiently substantive, without being excessively broad or unduly narrow;
Whether it is sufficiently distinct from existing or recent Special Issues or Collections and offers new academic value;
Whether the field has a sufficiently active research community and a strong pool of potential high-quality submissions.
Proposals that merely duplicate well-established topics, or that lack a substantive connection to the journal’s Aims & Scope, will generally not be approved.
5. GE/CE Team Composition
POLYMAS encourages Special Issues and Collections to be led by two or more GEs/CEs. The team’s expertise should align with the proposed scope. For interdisciplinary topics or proposals spanning multiple research areas, scholars with complementary expertise are encouraged to serve together.
When reviewing the proposed team, POLYMAS and the relevant journal may consider:
The alignment between each GE/CE’s expertise and the proposed topic;
The team’s overall academic qualifications and editorial capability;
Complementarity of expertise within the team;
Appropriate institutional and geographic diversity;
Any collaborative relationships or conflicts of interest that could affect editorial independence;
Whether the size of the team is appropriate for the scope and anticipated volume of submissions.
Based on the review, POLYMAS or the relevant journal may recommend adding, replacing, or otherwise adjusting members of the GE/CE team. Once the team has been approved, any subsequent addition, withdrawal, or replacement of a member must be submitted in advance to the relevant journal and POLYMAS for approval.
6. Prospective Authors and Submission Plan
Applicants should describe the expected submission base and principal outreach channels so that the feasibility of the Special Issue or Collection can be assessed. Potential sources of submissions may include:
Researchers within the GE/CEs’ academic networks;
Active scholars and research groups in the relevant field;
Research projects or academic collaboration networks related to the topic;
Relevant academic conferences, workshops, or other scholarly events;
Submissions attracted through an open Call for Papers or other appropriate outreach activities.
The list of prospective authors should, where possible, reflect appropriate diversity across institutions, geographic regions, and research groups. The anticipated submission pool should not be overly concentrated within the GE/CEs’ own institutions, close collaborators, or a small number of highly interconnected research networks.
Applicants must not promise prospective authors preferential handling, progression to peer review, acceptance, or publication. All submissions to the Special Issue or Collection, whether invited or unsolicited, must meet the same standards of academic quality, peer review, and publication ethics as regular submissions to the journal.
7. Timeline
The proposal should provide a reasonable and practicable timeline, including but not limited to:
Proposed approval and launch date;
Timing for publication and promotion of the Call for Papers;
Submission opening date;
Submission deadline;
Expected peer-review timeframe;
Expected completion date of the Special Issue or Collection.
Manuscripts should normally enter the standard editorial and peer-review process promptly upon submission rather than being held until the submission deadline for batch processing.
If the submission deadline or other key milestones need to be adjusted after approval, the GE/CE should consult the POLYMAS Editorial Office in advance. Material changes to the timeline must be confirmed by the relevant journal and/or POLYMAS before implementation.
8. Disclosure of Funding, Partnerships, and Conflicts of Interest
When submitting a proposal, applicants must disclose any funding sources, partnerships, or potential conflicts of interest that may relate to the planning, solicitation of submissions, peer review, publication, or promotion of the Special Issue or Collection. These may include, but are not limited to:
External research grants or dedicated project funding;
Sponsorship from companies or other commercial organizations;
Collaboration with academic conferences, societies, or professional organizations;
Collaboration with universities, research institutes, or other organizations;
Commercial, financial, or intellectual property interests related to the proposed topic;
Relationships between the GE/CEs and prospective authors that could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, editorial independence;
Any other relationship that could affect the academic independence of the Special Issue or Collection or that should be transparently disclosed to readers.
The existence of funding, sponsorship, or collaborative arrangements does not in itself constitute grounds for declining a proposal. However, all relevant relationships must be fully disclosed and must not influence manuscript selection, peer review, or editorial decisions. No third party may use funding, collaboration, or any other benefit to interfere with the editorial or peer-review process.
9. Review and Approval Process
Upon receipt of a complete proposal, the POLYMAS Editorial Office will conduct an initial review and, where appropriate, refer the proposal to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and/or relevant Editorial Board members of the journal for academic assessment. The review may consider:
Whether the proposed topic is consistent with the journal’s Aims & Scope;
Its academic significance, timeliness, originality, and development potential;
Whether the proposed scope is clear and appropriate;
The identity, expertise, academic qualifications, and topic fit of the proposed GE/CEs;
Whether the composition of the GE/CE team is appropriate;
The feasibility of the prospective author pool, submission sources, and implementation plan;
The extent of overlap with Special Issues or Collections that are already active, under development, or have been run recently;
Whether the proposed timeline is reasonable;
Whether any conflicts of interest require further disclosure, management, or recusal measures;
Whether there are any other risks that could compromise editorial independence, the fairness of peer review, or publication integrity.
During the review process, POLYMAS or the relevant journal may ask the applicant to provide additional information, revise the title or scope, adjust the GE/CE team, refine the list of prospective authors, or make other changes to the proposal.
Possible outcomes of the review include:
Approved;
Revision Required;
Deferred;
Declined.
A Special Issue or Collection may be launched, opened for submissions, or formally promoted under the name of POLYMAS and the relevant journal only after formal approval has been granted. All submissions remain subject to the journal’s established editorial screening, peer-review, and final editorial decision procedures.
3. Instructions for Guest and Collection Editors
1. Purpose and Scope
These Guidelines set out the responsibilities, authority, and standards of conduct applicable to Guest Editors (GEs) and Collection Editors (CEs) involved in Special Issues, Collections, and other guest-edited content published by POLYMAS journals. They are intended to safeguard academic quality, editorial independence, the integrity and fairness of peer review, and the integrity of the scholarly record.
These Guidelines apply to all Special Issues, Collections, and comparable thematic content planned, commissioned, edited, or managed with the involvement of GEs or CEs across POLYMAS journals.
Special Issues and Collections form part of the scholarly content of the host journal. Submissions to guest-edited content are subject to the same standards of academic quality, peer review, research integrity, and publication ethics as regular submissions to the journal.
An invitation to submit, submission to a Special Issue or Collection, or recommendation by a GE/CE does not confer preferential treatment and does not guarantee peer review, acceptance, or publication.
2. Core Principles
GEs and CEs must observe the following principles in carrying out their editorial responsibilities:
Academic quality: Manuscripts must be assessed on their originality, scholarly or scientific merit, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal and the scope of the Special Issue or Collection.
Editorial independence: Editorial judgment must be exercised independently and must not be improperly influenced by commercial interests, institutional relationships, personal relationships, sponsors, or other non-academic considerations.
Fairness and impartiality: Manuscripts must be evaluated without improper discrimination or preferential treatment based on an author’s nationality, geographic location, institutional affiliation, status, seniority, gender, personal relationships, or other factors unrelated to scholarly merit.
Integrity of peer review: Peer review must be conducted by appropriately qualified reviewers and managed in a fair, independent, and timely manner.
Competing interests: GEs/CEs must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could reasonably be considered to affect their editorial judgment and must recuse themselves where appropriate.
Confidentiality: Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence and discussions, and other confidential information must be protected.
Research and publication integrity: Suspected misconduct, peer-review manipulation, or other integrity concerns must be reported promptly and handled in accordance with POLYMAS policies.
Editorial accountability: AI and other assistive tools must not replace the professional judgment or responsibility of the editor handling the manuscript.
3. Responsibilities of Guest Editors and Collection Editors
GEs/CEs work under the academic oversight of the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and the journal’s Editorial Board, with operational and publication-ethics support from the POLYMAS Editorial Office.
3.1 Planning the Special Issue or Collection
Help define the topic, scholarly rationale, Aims & Scope, and intended coverage of the Special Issue or Collection;
Ensure that the proposed topic is consistent with the Aims & Scope of the host journal;
Articulate the scholarly significance, background, and expected contribution of the Special Issue or Collection;
Work with the journal to establish a realistic timetable for commissioning, submission, peer review, revision, and publication;
Contribute, where appropriate, to the preparation of the Call for Papers and other descriptive material.
3.2 Inviting Submissions
Identify and recommend potential contributors with relevant expertise;
Invite submissions from researchers working in relevant fields;
Promote the Special Issue or Collection through appropriate scholarly networks, conferences, and professional channels.
All invited manuscripts remain subject to the journal’s standard editorial screening and peer-review procedures. An invitation does not guarantee that a manuscript will be sent for external review or accepted for publication.
GEs/CEs must not promise or imply guaranteed acceptance, guaranteed publication, or acceptance within a specified period.
3.3 Managing Peer Review
Conduct an initial assessment of the manuscript’s fit with the scope of the Special Issue or Collection;
Identify and invite suitable reviewers;
Manage, or assist in managing, the peer-review process in accordance with journal policy;
Consider reviewer reports and author responses;
Make an editorial recommendation based on the manuscript, the peer-review reports, and any revisions.
GEs/CEs are expected to perform their editorial duties promptly and to avoid unnecessary delays in manuscript handling.
4. Selection of Reviewers
GEs/CEs must select reviewers who have appropriate subject-matter expertise and are able to provide an independent and objective assessment of the manuscript.
Research Articles and other submissions requiring full peer review should normally receive substantive reports from at least two external and independent reviewers with appropriate expertise, unless otherwise specified by the host journal or its article-type policies. Additional independent opinions should be sought where necessary.
When selecting and inviting reviewers, GEs/CEs must:
Consider any disclosed or otherwise known competing interests and avoid appointing reviewers where a relationship or interest could reasonably be expected to bias the review;
Not deliberately select reviewers because they are expected to provide a predetermined favorable or unfavorable assessment;
Take reasonable steps to verify reviewer identity, affiliation, contact details, and expertise where there is reason for doubt, and must not knowingly use fictitious, impersonated, or otherwise fraudulent reviewer identities;
Assess author-suggested reviewers for relevant expertise, independence, and potential competing interests in accordance with journal policy;
Remain alert to unusual or repeated author-reviewer relationships, patterns of reviewer recommendations, or other indicators that may compromise the independence of peer review;
Avoid over-reliance on a small, recurring group of reviewers where this could create a closed or insufficiently independent review network;
Not permit authors, sponsors, or other interested third parties to control reviewer selection or the substantive peer-review process.
If a reviewer report lacks substantive scholarly assessment or raises concerns about bias, undisclosed competing interests, reviewer identity, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, or other integrity issues, the GE/CE should seek guidance from the Editorial Office and, where appropriate, obtain an additional independent review.
The EiC or the Editorial Office may require additional or replacement reviewers, or a new round of independent peer review, where this is necessary to protect the quality or integrity of the editorial process.
5. Editorial Recommendations and Final Decision-Making
Within the scope of their delegated responsibilities, GEs/CEs may make editorial decisions, including rejection, major revision, minor revision, or acceptance, on the basis of the manuscript’s academic quality, the peer-review reports, and the authors’ revisions.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. GEs/CEs must exercise independent editorial judgment and should not make decisions by simple vote counting. Where reviewer reports differ materially, the GE/CE should assess the substance of the concerns and may seek an additional independent opinion where appropriate.
The authority of GEs/CEs to make editorial decisions must be based on the formal approval of their appointment and editorial responsibilities by the host journal. Before a Special Issue or Collection is launched, the proposed GE/CE’s subject expertise, academic qualifications, and suitability for the topic should be reviewed and approved by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), the relevant Section Editor-in-Chief where applicable, or an Editorial Board Member with appropriate authority. This process is intended to ensure that only suitably qualified individuals are authorized to undertake editorial responsibilities for the Special Issue or Collection.
Editorial Decision-Making Authority
Within the authority formally delegated by the host journal, GEs/CEs may generally make editorial decisions, including final acceptance decisions, for manuscripts in which they have no relevant competing interest. The scope of such authority must be defined by the journal’s editorial governance arrangements and formal delegation.
Following approval and launch of the Special Issue or Collection, the EiC, relevant Section Editor-in-Chief, and/or an Editorial Board Member with appropriate authority should continue to oversee the editorial process as appropriate. Such oversight may include monitoring manuscript handling, peer-review quality, consistency of editorial decisions, and compliance with the journal’s academic and ethical standards, as well as providing guidance or feedback to the GE/CE where necessary.
Where a GE/CE has an actual, potential, or reasonably perceived competing interest in a manuscript, the GE/CE must recuse themselves from reviewer selection, peer-review management, and editorial decision-making. The manuscript must be handled by the EiC or another Editorial Board Member with appropriate authority and no relevant competing interest. The identification and management of competing interests should be informed by COPE Guidance on Conflicts of Interest.
The EiC and the host journal retain oversight and may, where necessary:
Review a GE/CE editorial decision or recommendation;
Request further revision;
Require additional independent peer review;
Require renewed peer review;
Reassign the manuscript to another Editorial Board Member;
Reach a different decision where sufficient academic, ethical, integrity, or procedural grounds exist.
Different journals may delegate different levels of editorial decision-making authority to GEs/CEs depending on their editorial governance arrangements. However, the scope of delegated authority, competing-interest recusal mechanisms, and the oversight responsibilities of the EiC and the journal must remain clearly defined.
Where a journal delegates different levels of editorial decision-making authority to GEs/CEs, the scope of such authority should be specified in advance, with clear final editorial responsibility and oversight mechanisms.
6. Competing Interests and Recusal
GEs/CEs must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest that could affect, or could reasonably be perceived to affect, their independent editorial judgment.
Relevant competing interests may include, but are not limited to:
The GE/CE is an author or co-author of the manuscript;
An author is a family member of, or has a close personal relationship with, the GE/CE;
The GE/CE has a recent or ongoing close research collaboration with an author;
The GE/CE and an author have a direct supervisor-student, reporting, or other professional relationship that could affect independent judgment;
The GE/CE has a significant competitive, adversarial, or other relationship with an author that could affect objectivity;
The GE/CE has a direct financial or commercial interest in a product, patent, company, organization, service, or research outcome relevant to the manuscript;
Any other relationship or interest that could cause a reasonable third party to question the impartiality of the editorial process.
Affiliation with the same institution does not, by itself, automatically require recusal. The nature and proximity of the relationship—including departmental affiliation, collaboration, reporting lines, and other relevant connections—must be considered.
Where a material competing interest exists, the GE/CE must recuse themselves completely from handling the manuscript. They must not:
Select or recommend reviewers;
Manage peer review;
Evaluate reviewer reports or author responses;
Make or influence an editorial decision;
Otherwise intervene in the handling of the manuscript.
The manuscript must be reassigned to the EiC or to another editor without a relevant competing interest. Where there is uncertainty as to whether recusal is required, the interest should be disclosed to the EiC and/or Editorial Office for determination. Relevant decisions should be informed by COPE Guidance on Conflicts of Interest.
7. Submissions by GEs/CEs and Closely Associated Authors
POLYMAS does not prohibit GEs/CEs from submitting to a Special Issue or Collection for which they serve as editors. Such submissions, however, are subject to enhanced safeguards to ensure independent handling and to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
7.1 25% Limit on GE/CE-Authored Content
Within each Special Issue or Collection, articles authored or co-authored by the relevant GEs/CEs must collectively account for no more than 25% of the total number of peer-reviewed articles ultimately published in that Special Issue or Collection. Editorials and other non-peer-reviewed content are not included in this percentage, but must still be handled in accordance with the journal’s policies on competing interests and editorial independence.
The numerator is the number of peer-reviewed articles that include at least one relevant GE/CE as an author, and the denominator is the total number of peer-reviewed articles ultimately published in the Special Issue or Collection. This limit must not be circumvented by splitting an initiative, changing authorship, reclassifying sections or article types, or transferring article attribution.
Where the final number of peer-reviewed articles in a Special Issue or Collection is small, such that a single GE/CE-authored article could reach or exceed the 25% threshold, the Editorial Office should conduct particular scrutiny at both the proposal and closing stages and ensure that the relevant manuscript is subject to independent editorial handling and peer review.
7.2 Independent Handling
A manuscript authored or co-authored by a GE/CE must:
Be subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as any other submission;
Be handled independently by the EiC or by an Editorial Board Member without a relevant competing interest and with appropriate editorial authority;
Be handled without the GE/CE participating in reviewer selection;
Be handled without the GE/CE managing or influencing the peer-review process;
Not provide the GE/CE with access to confidential reviewer information to which they would not otherwise be entitled;
Be decided without the GE/CE participating in or influencing the editorial decision.
7.3 Submissions from Closely Associated Authors
The same independent-handling principles apply to submissions from family members, close collaborators, direct students or supervisors, persons in direct reporting relationships, and other authors with whom a GE/CE has a material competing interest.
A Special Issue or Collection must not be used primarily as a publication vehicle for its GEs/CEs, a particular research group, institution, or closed collaboration network. Where authorship, institutional representation, collaboration patterns, or other features are unusually concentrated, the Editorial Office may undertake additional checks and, where appropriate, restrict the handling of affected submissions, modify the composition or operation of the Special Issue or Collection, or suspend processing.
8. Confidentiality
GEs/CEs must treat all non-public information obtained through the editorial and peer-review process as confidential. This includes, without limitation:
Unpublished manuscripts and their contents;
Data, figures, and supplementary materials;
Non-public information provided by authors;
Reviewer reports;
Reviewer identities and contact information where the applicable peer-review model requires anonymity;
Author responses and revised materials;
Internal editorial correspondence and discussions;
Materials relating to research-integrity or publication-ethics inquiries;
Any other information designated as confidential by POLYMAS or the host journal.
GEs/CEs must not disclose, reproduce, forward, or otherwise disseminate confidential material without authorization.
Unpublished data, methods, findings, ideas, or other privileged information obtained through manuscript handling or peer review must not be used for personal advantage or for the benefit of any third party.
Where limited disclosure to an institution, another journal, or another third party is necessary in connection with a research-integrity or publication-ethics inquiry, such disclosure must be coordinated by POLYMAS in accordance with the applicable procedure. GEs/CEs must not make such disclosures independently.
These confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the Special Issue or Collection and after the GE/CE appointment has ended.
9. Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies
In using generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in editorial or peer-review activities, GEs/CEs must protect manuscript confidentiality, personal data, intellectual property, and the integrity of the editorial process.
9.1 Confidential Material
Unless POLYMAS has expressly approved a tool for the relevant editorial purpose and appropriate safeguards are in place, GEs/CEs must not upload, copy, paste, or otherwise input any of the following into a public or third-party generative AI tool:
An unpublished manuscript, in whole or in part;
Figures, data, or supplementary materials;
Reviewer reports;
Author responses or revision materials;
Internal editorial correspondence or discussions;
Any other material protected by editorial or peer-review confidentiality.
9.2 Human Editorial Responsibility
Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies must not be used to:
Replace the GE/CE’s substantive assessment of the academic quality or integrity of a manuscript;
Make or generate an editorial decision that is adopted without appropriate human review;
Create fabricated reviewer reports, editorial records, or other misleading content;
Attempt to identify anonymous authors or reviewers;
Undertake any activity that could compromise confidentiality, fairness, data protection, intellectual property, or research integrity.
Where POLYMAS provides or expressly approves AI-assisted tools for editorial use, GEs/CEs may use them only within the authorized scope. The responsible human editor remains accountable for the final professional judgment and editorial action.
10. Citation Ethics and Prohibition of Citation Manipulation
Any recommendation to add references must be based on genuine scholarly relevance and must be necessary to improve the accuracy, context, methodology, interpretation, or completeness of the manuscript.
GEs/CEs must not request or encourage citations for the purpose of increasing citation counts or other metrics for themselves, reviewers, the journal, the Special Issue or Collection, an institution, a research group, or any other party.
Prohibited practices include:
Making acceptance, revision, or continued consideration conditional on the addition of unnecessary or irrelevant citations;
Pressuring authors to cite publications authored by a GE/CE;
Pressuring authors to cite publications authored by reviewers;
Pressuring authors to cite articles from the host journal;
Pressuring authors to cite other articles in the same Special Issue or Collection;
Requesting disproportionate citation of a particular institution, research group, or collaboration network;
Organizing or participating in citation stacking, citation cartels, or any other form of citation manipulation.
A request to add important literature that is directly relevant to the research question, theoretical context, methods, results, or discussion does not constitute coercive citation.
If a reviewer report contains inappropriate citation requests, the GE/CE must not treat those requests as mandatory conditions of revision and should address or report them in accordance with journal policy.
11. Reporting Irregularities and Integrity Concerns
GEs/CEs must promptly report to the EiC and/or POLYMAS Editorial Office any suspected or apparent issue that could compromise research integrity, publication ethics, peer review, or the reliability of the scholarly record, including:
Plagiarism, inappropriate text overlap, or duplicate publication;
Suspected fabrication or falsification of data, images, or research results;
Authorship irregularities, false authorship, or identity concerns;
Indicators of paper-mill activity, purchased manuscripts or authorship, or ghostwriting;
Fictitious, impersonated, or compromised reviewer identities;
Peer-review manipulation or unusual author-reviewer relationships;
Multiple submissions showing unusually similar structures, data, language, or other patterns;
Undisclosed material competing interests;
Citation manipulation;
Serious concerns regarding ethics approval, informed consent, or research registration;
Use of AI that is inconsistent with applicable POLYMAS or journal policy;
Attempts by commercial organizations, sponsors, or other third parties to interfere with editorial handling;
Any other matter that may undermine research integrity, the fairness of peer review, or the reliability of the publication record.
GEs/CEs must preserve relevant editorial records and cooperate with any reasonable review or investigation conducted or coordinated by POLYMAS.
GEs/CEs must not independently initiate a formal misconduct investigation with an author’s institution, or undertake investigative steps outside their remit, unless specifically authorized. Formal investigations, institutional communications, and publication-ethics actions must be coordinated by POLYMAS under the applicable procedures.
12. Special Issue and Collection-Level Integrity Risks
In addition to concerns relating to individual manuscripts, GEs/CEs, the EiC, and the Editorial Office should remain alert to patterns that may indicate risks at the level of the Special Issue or Collection, including:
An unusually high volume of submissions over a short period;
Submissions concentrated among a small number of closely connected institutions or research groups;
Unusually dense collaboration links among authors, GEs/CEs, and reviewers;
Repeated use of the same or highly similar recommended reviewers;
Unusually rapid peer review;
Reviewer reports that are highly repetitive or lack substantive evaluation;
Submissions that fall clearly outside the stated scope;
Patterns suggestive of coordinated or paper-mill submissions;
Irregularities in a GE/CE’s identity, email address, affiliation, credentials, or subject expertise;
Evidence that a third party is attempting to control the Special Issue, Collection, or peer-review process.
Where such risks are identified, POLYMAS may suspend the processing of some or all submissions to the Special Issue or Collection while appropriate checks or investigations are undertaken.
13. Sponsorship, Commercial Interests, and Editorial Independence
Any external funding, commercial sponsorship, conference partnership, institutional collaboration, or other relationship that may be relevant to a Special Issue or Collection must be disclosed to POLYMAS and, where appropriate, transparently disclosed to readers.
Sponsors, partner organizations, conference organizers, funders, and other third parties must not:
Require that a particular manuscript be accepted or published;
Interfere with reviewer selection;
Control or seek to influence peer-review outcomes;
Require the journal to lower or bypass its normal editorial or peer-review standards;
Influence the editorial decision on an individual manuscript;
Condition financial, collaborative, promotional, or other benefits on a particular editorial outcome.
Any attempt at inappropriate interference must be reported promptly to the Editorial Office.
14. Non-Compliance, Suspension, and Termination
Where a GE/CE fails to comply with these Guidelines or other applicable POLYMAS or journal policies, POLYMAS and/or the EiC may, depending on the nature and seriousness of the matter, issue guidance or a warning, restrict editorial access or responsibilities, reassign manuscripts, suspend the Special Issue or Collection, suspend the appointment, or terminate the GE/CE appointment.
Grounds for such action may include:
Serious or repeated breaches of peer-review policy;
Failure to disclose a material competing interest;
Failure to recuse from manuscript handling where recusal is required;
Manipulation or attempted manipulation of peer review;
Use of fictitious, impersonated, or otherwise fraudulent reviewer identities;
Engaging in, facilitating, or tolerating citation manipulation;
Breach of manuscript or peer-review confidentiality;
Uploading confidential manuscripts or review materials to an unauthorized third-party AI tool;
Using a Special Issue or Collection to secure improper publication advantage for oneself, particular authors, research groups, institutions, or commercial entities;
Making inappropriate promises of acceptance or publication;
Persistent failure, without reasonable justification, to perform editorial duties in a timely manner;
Refusal to cooperate with a reasonable publication-ethics or research-integrity review or investigation;
Providing materially false information about identity, credentials, affiliation, or other relevant matters;
Other conduct that seriously compromises academic quality, editorial independence, research integrity, publication integrity, or the reputation of POLYMAS.
Where serious or systemic concerns are identified, POLYMAS may suspend or discontinue the entire Special Issue or Collection.
Where concerns affect published content, POLYMAS will assess the need for a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate post-publication action in accordance with its applicable publication-ethics and research-integrity policies.
15. Editorial Oversight and Intervention
POLYMAS and the host journal share responsibility for ensuring that Special Issues and Collections are planned, managed, peer reviewed, and published in accordance with the journal’s academic standards and POLYMAS policies.
The EiC and the Editorial Board are responsible for the academic oversight and editorial standards of the host journal. Individual manuscripts may be handled by the EiC or, where appropriate, by an Editorial Board Member designated by the EiC who has no relevant competing interest. The POLYMAS Editorial Office provides oversight and support in relation to editorial workflow, publication ethics, research integrity, competing-interest management, and operational compliance.
Within their respective responsibilities, POLYMAS, the EiC, and the Editorial Board may:
Verify the identity, credentials, subject expertise, suitability, and potential competing interests of GEs/CEs;
Review proposals for Special Issues and Collections and assess the composition and suitability of the Guest Editorial Team;
Review the suitability, independence, and potential competing interests of reviewers;
Require additional or replacement reviewers, or renewed reviewer invitations, where necessary;
Review editorial recommendations made by GEs/CEs where appropriate;
Reassign manuscripts involving competing interests, peer-review irregularities, or other exceptional circumstances to the EiC or to an Editorial Board Member designated by the EiC who has no relevant competing interest;
Require additional independent review or a new round of peer review where the available reviews are insufficient, materially conflicting, or the integrity of the review process is in question;
Suspend the handling of a manuscript and undertake appropriate checks where concerns arise regarding research integrity, publication ethics, competing interests, or peer review;
Suspend part or all of a Special Issue or Collection where systemic concerns arise regarding academic quality, peer review, or publication integrity;
Modify the composition or responsibilities of the Guest Editorial Team where necessary;
Suspend or terminate a GE/CE appointment in cases of serious or repeated policy breaches, material competing interests, failure to recuse when required, or inability to fulfil editorial responsibilities;
Suspend or discontinue a Special Issue or Collection where serious or systemic concerns arise regarding academic quality, peer review, research integrity, or publication ethics;
Initiate appropriate review of post-publication integrity or ethics concerns and take action in accordance with POLYMAS policies.
Editorial Decisions and Academic Independence
Decisions on the academic merits of individual manuscripts, including acceptance or rejection, must be based on the quality and integrity of the manuscript, the peer-review reports, the authors’ revisions, and the editorial standards of the host journal.
Within the authority formally delegated by the host journal, GEs/CEs may manage peer review and make editorial decisions, including final acceptance decisions. The scope of such authority must be defined by the journal’s editorial governance arrangements and formal delegation. Where a GE/CE has an actual, potential, or reasonably perceived competing interest in a manuscript, the GE/CE must recuse themselves from reviewer selection, peer-review management, and editorial decision-making, and the manuscript must be handled by the EiC or another Editorial Board Member with appropriate authority and no relevant competing interest. The identification and management of competing interests should be informed by COPE Guidance on Conflicts of Interest.
A GE/CE must not participate in reviewer selection, peer-review management, or editorial decision-making for a manuscript that they have authored or co-authored, or for any other manuscript in which they have a material competing interest.
POLYMAS may oversee and review editorial workflow, peer-review compliance, competing interests, research-integrity matters, and publication-ethics concerns, and may take necessary procedural or compliance measures. Academic decisions to accept or reject manuscripts must not be improperly influenced by commercial, financial, operational, sponsorship, or other non-academic considerations.
The Editorial Board supports the EiC in maintaining the journal’s academic quality, editorial standards, and publication integrity and may provide scholarly advice and support in complex academic, peer-review, or publication-ethics matters in accordance with the journal’s governance arrangements.
POLYMAS, the EiC, the Editorial Board, GEs/CEs, and the Editorial Office must collectively uphold editorial independence, the integrity and fairness of peer review, and the integrity of the scholarly record.
16. Acceptance of Appointment and Compliance
By accepting an appointment as a POLYMAS Guest Editor or Collection Editor, the appointee agrees to:
Comply with these Guidelines and all applicable policies of POLYMAS and the host journal;
Perform editorial duties fairly, independently, diligently, and in a timely manner;
Disclose and appropriately manage competing interests;
Protect the independence, integrity, and confidentiality of peer review;
Not use the editorial role to obtain improper academic, financial, commercial, or other advantage;
Comply with applicable POLYMAS policies on AI use, research integrity, and publication ethics;
Report suspected breaches, manipulation, or other irregularities promptly;
Cooperate with reasonable quality-control checks, audits, and research-integrity or publication-ethics investigations conducted or coordinated by POLYMAS.
Where a host journal has specific requirements for a particular discipline, article type, or peer-review model, those requirements apply in addition to these Guidelines. Questions involving material competing interests, research integrity, or editorial authority will be handled by the EiC and POLYMAS in accordance with the applicable policies.
POLYMAS may revise these Guidelines from time to time to reflect developments in publication ethics, peer-review practice, technology, and POLYMAS publishing policies.
Editorial language and policy framing reviewed against current international publishing practice, including Elsevier’s Guest Editor guidance and COPE guidance on guest-edited collections.
4. Instructions for Authors
1. Special Issue and Collection Submissions Are Subject to the Same Standards as Regular Submissions
Manuscripts submitted to a Special Issue or Collection are subject to the same standards of academic quality, originality, research ethics, and peer review as regular submissions to the journal. All Special Issue and Collection manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system and undergo independent and impartial peer review in accordance with the journal’s established editorial policies. Special Issues are managed with the involvement of Guest Editors (GEs), while Collections are managed with the involvement of Collection Editors (CEs). An invitation to submit does not imply preferential treatment or guarantee that a manuscript will proceed to peer review or be accepted for publication.
GEs/CEs must assess manuscripts in accordance with the journal’s established academic and editorial standards. Review or acceptance criteria must not be relaxed because a manuscript is submitted to a Special Issue or Collection, invited by the GE/CE team, or submitted by an author affiliated with a collaborating institution. Academic assessments and editorial decisions made by GEs/CEs must comply with the journal’s established editorial policies and quality standards. The journal’s editorial office is responsible for coordinating and managing the manuscript workflow and maintaining appropriate quality control throughout the editorial process.
Where a manuscript is submitted by a GE/CE, another scholar involved in the editorial activities of the Special Issue or Collection, or an author with whom a relevant conflict of interest exists, the individual concerned must recuse themselves from the academic assessment, reviewer recommendation, and editorial decision-making process. These academic responsibilities must be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or another Editorial Board Member with no relevant conflict of interest, while the journal’s editorial office continues to manage and coordinate the manuscript workflow.
Within each Special Issue or Collection, articles authored or co-authored by the relevant GEs/CEs must collectively account for no more than 25% of the total number of peer-reviewed articles ultimately published in that Special Issue or Collection. Editorials and other non-peer-reviewed content are not included in this percentage, but must still be handled in accordance with the journal’s policies on competing interests and editorial independence.
This percentage is calculated using the total number of peer-reviewed articles ultimately published in the Special Issue or Collection as the denominator, and the number of peer-reviewed articles that include at least one relevant GE/CE as an author or co-author as the numerator. This limit must not be circumvented by splitting a Special Issue or Collection, changing authorship, altering article categories or types, or transferring article attribution.
Where the final number of peer-reviewed articles published in a Special Issue or Collection is small, such that a single GE/CE-authored article could reach or exceed the 25% threshold, the Editorial Office should conduct particular scrutiny at both the proposal and closing stages and ensure that the relevant manuscript is subject to independent editorial handling and peer review.
2. Peer Review
All submissions to a Special Issue or Collection are subject to the journal’s established editorial and peer-review standards and undergo the same quality-control procedures as regular submissions.
Following submission, each manuscript will undergo an initial editorial assessment to evaluate its relevance to the scope of the journal and the relevant Special Issue or Collection, its academic quality, and its compliance with the journal’s basic requirements. Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment will be sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise for external peer review.
GEs/CEs may participate in the academic assessment of manuscripts, recommend reviewers, contribute to the peer-review process, and, within the authority formally delegated by the host journal, make editorial decisions, including final acceptance decisions. The journal’s editorial office coordinates and manages the manuscript workflow and peer-review process throughout, ensuring that the Special Issue or Collection operates in accordance with the journal’s established editorial policies and quality standards.
Where a GE/CE or another scholar involved in the editorial activities of the Special Issue or Collection is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript, or where a GE/CE has another actual, potential, or reasonably perceived competing interest, the relevant GE/CE must not participate in the academic assessment, reviewer recommendation, peer-review oversight, or editorial decision-making process for that manuscript. The manuscript must instead be handled by the Editor-in-Chief or another Editorial Board Member with appropriate authority and no relevant competing interest, and must undergo the journal’s standard peer-review process. The identification and management of competing interests should be informed by COPE Guidance on Conflicts of Interest.
3. Article Processing Charges and Waivers
Unless a Special Issue- or Collection-specific waiver or discount policy has been formally approved and publicly disclosed by the journal, manuscripts submitted to a Special Issue or Collection are subject to the journal’s standard Article Processing Charge (APC) policy.
The Special Issue or Collection webpage, Call for Papers, and Instructions for Authors should clearly state:
The applicable APC amount and currency;
The publishing services covered by the APC;
Any additional charges that may apply;
The eligibility criteria, scope, and application procedure for APC waivers or discounts; and
That the APC is generally payable only after a manuscript has been formally accepted for publication.
An author’s ability or willingness to pay the APC, or their application for or receipt of a waiver or discount, must not influence whether a manuscript proceeds to peer review, the reviewers’ assessments, or the final editorial decision.
GEs/CEs are not normally responsible for the final approval of APC waivers or discounts. Depending on journal policy and operational needs, GEs/CEs may provide relevant information or recommendations, but must not use an APC waiver or discount to promise acceptance, solicit submissions, or influence any editorial decision.
4. Conflicts of Interest
To ensure the independence, fairness, and transparency of editorial decisions, GEs, CEs, other journal editors, reviewers, and authors involved in a Special Issue or Collection are required to disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest that could influence their professional judgment.
GEs/CEs must not participate in the academic assessment or editorial decision-making for manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, including manuscripts they author or co-author and manuscripts submitted by family members, recent collaborators, close colleagues at the same institution, or other individuals with whom a relationship could reasonably affect objective judgment.
Where a conflict of interest exists, the relevant GE/CE must recuse themselves. The academic assessment and editorial decision must be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or another Editorial Board Member with no relevant conflict of interest. The journal’s editorial office will continue to manage the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s established editorial and peer-review policies.
Where a Special Issue or Collection receives funding or support from an institution, company, funder, or other third party, the relevant funding sources and any relationships that could affect editorial independence must be appropriately disclosed. No sponsor or partner may interfere with author selection, reviewer selection, the peer-review process, or final editorial decisions.
5. Research Ethics
All manuscripts submitted to a Special Issue or Collection must comply with the journal’s policies on research ethics, publication ethics, and academic integrity. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
Research involving human participants, human biological materials, or personal data must have received approval from an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board, or an official waiver or exemption where applicable. The manuscript should state the name of the reviewing body, the approval number where available, and the basis for any waiver or exemption.
Where informed consent is required, authors must confirm that appropriate informed consent has been obtained from participants. Consent for publication must also be obtained where identifiable personal information, images, or case details are included, where applicable.
Research involving animals must receive appropriate ethical approval and be conducted in accordance with applicable animal welfare standards and regulations.
Authors must fully and accurately disclose relevant conflicts of interest, sources of funding, and author contributions, and provide an appropriate Data Availability Statement in accordance with the journal’s applicable research data policies.
Data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, peer-review manipulation, citation manipulation, and other forms of research or publication misconduct are strictly prohibited.
Where a manuscript is suspected of violating research or publication ethics, the journal may suspend the peer-review or publication process, assess the matter with reference to applicable COPE guidance, and, where necessary, refer the matter to the authors’ institutions, funding organizations, or other appropriate bodies for further investigation.
If serious ethical or publication concerns are identified after publication, the journal may take appropriate corrective action, including issuing a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction.
The journal should maintain and continuously develop an appropriate ethical oversight framework with reference to relevant COPE guidance, including requirements relating to informed consent, the protection of vulnerable populations, ethics approval, and compliance with recognized standards for the ethical conduct of research.
Medical journals that follow the ICMJE Recommendations must additionally comply with applicable requirements for medical publishing, including timely registration of clinical trials in accordance with ICMJE requirements, protection of research participants, appropriate informed consent, disclosure of relevant relationships and activities, and adherence to applicable medical research reporting guidelines. Suspected scientific or publication misconduct should be addressed with reference to procedures recommended by COPE and other relevant professional bodies, with authors’ institutions or funding organizations contacted where appropriate.
6. Data and Materials Sharing
Special Issues and Collections follow the journal’s established policies on research data and materials sharing. To promote research transparency, verifiability, and reproducibility, authors are encouraged to share the data, code, research materials, and other research outputs supporting their findings, subject to applicable ethical, legal, privacy, and intellectual property considerations.
Authors are encouraged to follow the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and to deposit relevant data and materials in appropriate and trusted disciplinary, institutional, or general-purpose repositories to facilitate their long-term preservation, accessibility, and reuse.
Authors should provide a Data Availability Statement in accordance with the journal’s applicable data policies, indicating whether and how the data and materials supporting the findings can be accessed. Where public sharing is not possible due to ethical, privacy, legal, commercial confidentiality, or other legitimate restrictions, the applicable limitations and conditions for access should be clearly stated.
During peer review, editors or reviewers may request access to relevant data or materials supporting the findings where necessary to facilitate the assessment and verification of the research.
7. Special Issue and Collection Identification and Labeling
All Special Issues, Collections, and the articles published within them must be clearly, consistently, and readily identifiable. In principle, each dedicated Special Issue or Collection webpage should provide the following information:
The official title of the Special Issue or Collection;
An overview of the Special Issue or Collection, including its scope and keywords;
The names, affiliations, and brief biographies of the GEs/CEs;
The submission deadline;
Submission instructions and information about the peer-review process;
The applicable APC and waiver policy; and
A continuously updated list of published Special Issue or Collection articles.
Each Special Issue or Collection article must be clearly identified as part of the relevant Special Issue or Collection on the article webpage, on the first page of the article PDF, and in the publication metadata. The article webpage should also link to the corresponding Special Issue or Collection webpage. This designation must be retained even when an article is published within a regular volume or issue of the journal.
The title “GE” should be reserved for scholars who actively undertake academic editorial responsibilities for a Special Issue, while “CE” should be reserved for scholars who undertake the corresponding responsibilities for a Collection. Experts who contribute solely through topic consultation, academic promotion, or author recommendations, without participating in the academic assessment of manuscripts or editorial decision-making, should be identified as a “Guest Advisor,” “Academic Advisor,” or another appropriate non-editorial title and should not be listed as GEs or CEs.
8. Submission Deadline
The submission period for a Special Issue or Collection is normally 6 to 12 months. The journal may adjust or extend the submission deadline as appropriate, depending on the progress and publication needs of the relevant initiative. Any adjustment to the deadline will not affect the journal’s established editorial standards, peer-review requirements, or acceptance criteria.
All submissions must first undergo the journal’s prescribed editorial assessment. Only manuscripts that fall within the scope of the journal and the relevant Special Issue or Collection and meet the applicable quality and policy requirements will proceed to external peer review. Neither an invitation to submit nor submission before the deadline guarantees that a manuscript will proceed to external peer review or ultimately be accepted for publication.
Manuscripts that remain under editorial assessment, peer review, or revision after the Special Issue or Collection submission deadline may continue through the journal’s standard editorial process. The submission deadline indicates the date after which new submissions to the relevant Special Issue or Collection are no longer accepted; it does not require manuscripts already submitted to complete peer review or publication by that date.
Once all manuscripts intended for inclusion in the Special Issue or Collection that are ultimately accepted have completed the editorial and publication processes and have been formally published, the journal may publish an Editorial and mark the Special Issue or Collection as complete.
9. Continuous Publication of Special Issue and Collection Articles
Special Issues and Collections follow a continuous publication model, and authors are encouraged to submit their manuscripts as early as possible. Upon submission, each manuscript will proceed to editorial assessment and peer review without waiting for the submission deadline or for other manuscripts to complete the review process.
Each manuscript will be published online in a timely manner once it has independently completed peer review, received final acceptance, and undergone the necessary production processes. Published articles will be added to the corresponding Special Issue or Collection webpage and arranged according to their online publication dates or the journal’s established publication practices.
The Special Issue or Collection webpage will be continuously updated as new articles are published until the relevant initiative is formally completed. Publication of accepted manuscripts must not be unnecessarily delayed while awaiting completion of other Special Issue or Collection articles or solely for the purpose of grouping multiple articles into a single issue.
5. Special Issue & Collection Integrity Policy
1. Purpose and Scope
This policy is intended to safeguard the academic quality, editorial independence, integrity of peer review, and reliability of the published scholarly record of Special Issues and Collections. All Special Issues and Collections must comply with the journal's requirements governing regular submissions, including those concerning editorial procedures, peer review, research ethics, conflicts of interest, and post-publication action, and are subject to ongoing oversight by the Editor-in-Chief and the publisher. In this policy, Guest Editors (GEs) and Collection Editors (CEs) are collectively referred to as GEs/CEs.
This policy applies to print special issues, online special issues, cross-journal thematic collections, collections, themed sections, and other collections of articles planned with the participation of GEs or external partners. It covers the full lifecycle, including proposal, approval, appointment of GEs, calls for papers, peer review, editorial decisions, publication, and post-publication action. Invited submissions, conference partnerships, external funding, or editorial status do not justify reduced standards or guarantee publication.
2. Core Principles
Special Issues and Collections must serve a clear and legitimate scholarly purpose that falls within the journal's scope. Their organizational arrangements must not weaken the journal's control over submissions, create closed networks of authors, editors, or reviewers, or be used to improperly increase publication volume, citations, or journal metrics. All decisions must be based on manuscript quality, research reliability, and relevance to the journal's scope.
3. Integrity Control Requirements
3.1 Final Oversight by the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher
The Editor-in-Chief retains overall academic and integrity oversight of Special Issues and Collections. Within authority formally delegated by the host journal, GEs/CEs may manage peer review and make editorial decisions, including final acceptance decisions, for manuscripts in which they have no relevant competing interest. The publisher and EiC may intervene where necessary to address academic quality, publication ethics, research integrity, legal, compliance, or procedural concerns, including by requiring additional review, reviewing or revising an editorial decision, suspending editorial processes, restricting or revoking delegated editorial privileges, or terminating a Special Issue or Collection. Where a GE/CE has a competing interest, the GE/CE must recuse themselves and the manuscript must be handled independently; relevant decisions should be informed by COPE Guidance on Conflicts of Interest.
3.2 Proposal Review and Verification of GE/CE Identity
Each proposal must explain its scholarly rationale, scope, anticipated manuscript types, timeline, prospective author community, funding or collaborative relationships, and proposed GEs/CEs. Before appointment, the editorial office must verify each GE/CE’s full name, current institutional affiliation and position, institutional email address, research expertise, publication record and relevant academic experience, ORCID, previous editorial activities, and potential conflicts of interest, and must retain records of that verification. A proposal must not be approved if identity, professional qualifications, or any known research or publication ethics concerns cannot be reliably verified, or if the proposal presents risks involving non-transparent solicitation, unusual commercial arrangements, or manipulation of metrics.
3.3 Independent and Sufficient Peer Review
As a general rule, articles in Special Issues and Collections must be reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers who have relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest. The editorial office must independently verify each reviewer's identity, affiliation, contact details, and professional background. Reviewers recommended by authors must not be the sole source of peer review. Invited submissions are subject to the same applicable editorial and peer-review standards as comparable regular submissions and carry no presumption or guarantee of acceptance. Where exceptionally compelling circumstances prevent the receipt of at least two independent reviews, the Editor-in-Chief must approve and document an exception based on the quality of the review obtained.
3.4 Independent Handling of Editorial Submissions and Conflicts of Interest
When a manuscript is submitted by a GE, the Editor-in-Chief, an editorial board member, or any of their close personal or professional associates, recent collaborators, or individuals from the same institution where a material conflict exists, the editor concerned must recuse themselves completely. They must not select reviewers, access confidential peer-review information, participate in editorial discussions, select or recommend reviewers, or influence the editorial decision. The manuscript must be handled independently by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor without a conflict of interest, must undergo the same review process as a regular submission, and must appropriately disclose the independent handling arrangements in the published version. Other financial, professional, academic, or personal conflicts of interest must be managed according to the same principle.
3.5 25% Limit on GE/CE-Authored Content
Within each Special Issue or Collection, articles authored or co-authored by the relevant GEs/CEs should, as a general rule, account for no more than 25% of the total number of peer-reviewed items ultimately published in that Special Issue or Collection. The Editorial Office should monitor this proportion throughout the lifecycle of the Special Issue or Collection.
For Special Issues or Collections with a small final publication volume, the proportion may be affected by the small denominator, such that a single GE/CE-authored article could cause the 25% threshold to be exceeded. In such cases, the Editorial Office should document the final size of the Special Issue or Collection, the reason for exceeding the threshold, and the independent handling of the relevant manuscript(s), with confirmation by the Editor-in-Chief or another designated editor with no relevant competing interest. A small publication volume must not be used deliberately to circumvent the 25% limit.
Manuscripts authored or co-authored by a GE/CE must be handled throughout by an independent Editorial Board Member with no relevant competing interest. The GE/CE concerned must not participate in reviewer selection, peer review, editorial discussion, or the publication decision. Remaining below the 25% threshold, or being permitted to exceed it because of the small size of the Special Issue or Collection, does not mean that the manuscript concerned automatically satisfies the requirements for peer review, acceptance, or publication.
3.6 No Interference by Funders, Partners, or Conference Organizers
Funders, commercial partners, academic conferences, and collaborating institutions may provide lawful and fully disclosed support, but they must not determine which authors may submit or be invited, select or exclude reviewers, access confidential manuscripts or peer-review reports, or influence editorial decisions, article ordering, research conclusions, or post-publication action. The editorial office must transparently disclose funding sources, collaborative relationships, fee arrangements, and any relationships that could affect readers' judgment. Sponsorship must never guarantee peer review or publication.
3.7 Continuous Monitoring of Editorial and Peer-Review Integrity
Throughout the lifecycle of a Special Issue or Collection, the editorial office and publisher must monitor risk indicators such as unusually concentrated submissions, exceptionally rapid reviews, repeated use of the same group of reviewers, unexplained or unverifiable use of non-institutional email addresses, false or misappropriated identities, highly similar review reports, unusual citation recommendations, excessive clustering of relationships between authors and editors, batch-level textual or image similarities, and manipulation of peer review. Automated or AI-assisted integrity screening must not serve as the sole basis for an editorial decision. Such tools may be used to flag manuscripts or editorial activity for further human review, identity verification, independent peer review, or targeted audit.
3.8 Suspension, Investigation, Retraction, and Correction
3.8.1 Circumstances in Which This Section Applies
If POLYMAS receives or identifies research or publication integrity concerns supported by specific factual grounds, including but not limited to:
Impersonation, falsification of identity, or misrepresentation of qualifications by authors, reviewers, or editors;
Undisclosed material competing interests that may affect editorial decision-making;
Fraudulent peer review, peer-review collusion, reviewer rings, or other forms of peer-review manipulation;
Paper mills, the buying or selling of authorship, or third-party submission or reviewing services;
Fabrication or falsification of data, data that cannot reasonably be verified, or image duplication, reuse, or inappropriate manipulation;
Irregular authorship changes, manuscript substitution, duplicate submission, or systematically similar manuscripts;
Other credible concerns that may affect the reliability of a manuscript, the peer-review process, or published content,
POLYMAS will conduct a preliminary assessment and, where appropriate, an investigation in accordance with applicable journal policies, publication ethics standards, and relevant COPE procedures.
The raising of a concern does not in itself constitute a finding of misconduct. POLYMAS will determine the appropriate course of action based on the specificity of the concern, the credibility of the available evidence, the potential impact, and the scope of the risk.
3.8.2 Interim Risk-Control Measures
During a preliminary assessment or investigation, the Editor-in-Chief and the publisher may take necessary and proportionate interim measures, including:
Suspending peer review, editorial decision-making, acceptance, or publication of the manuscript concerned;
Suspending publication of a manuscript that has been accepted but not yet formally published;
Suspending the handling of some or all content within a Special Issue or Collection where the concern may involve multiple manuscripts, shared reviewers, the same editorial team, or systematic manipulation;
Temporarily restricting a GE/CE from handling manuscripts, selecting reviewers, accessing peer-review materials, or making editorial recommendations;
Reassigning manuscripts to an Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board Member, or other independent academic editor with no relevant competing interest;
Suspending the use of author, reviewer, or editor accounts where identity or independence cannot be adequately verified;
Appropriately preserving relevant manuscripts, correspondence, reviewer reports, account information, version histories, editorial decisions, and other materials required for the investigation.
Temporary suspension or restriction of editorial privileges is a precautionary measure intended to protect the integrity of peer review and the publication record. It does not mean that POLYMAS has determined that misconduct has occurred.
3.8.3 POLYMAS Research Integrity Officer
POLYMAS appoints a Research Integrity Officer (RIO) to coordinate research and publication integrity matters relating to Special Issues and Collections. The responsibilities of the RIO include:
Receiving and formally recording research or publication integrity concerns;
Conducting preliminary risk assessments and determining the appropriate scope of an investigation;
Coordinating with the Editor-in-Chief, independent editors, the publisher, and external experts where necessary;
Verifying the identity, contact details, and potential competing interests of authors, reviewers, and editors;
Reviewing manuscript versions, peer-review records, original data, original images, and other relevant materials;
Ensuring that any GE/CE involved in the matter does not participate in the investigation or in decisions concerning the handling of the relevant manuscript(s);
Recommending, where supported by the evidence, whether the investigation should be extended to other manuscripts involving the same Special Issue, Collection, authors, reviewers, or editors;
Maintaining records of the investigation process, responses from the parties concerned, assessment of the evidence, and final decisions;
Advising the Editor-in-Chief and the publisher on whether rejection, withdrawal of acceptance, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other measures are appropriate.
The RIO must handle cases independently and impartially. If the RIO has an actual, potential, or reasonably perceived competing interest, the case must be referred to another authorized individual with no relevant competing interest or to an external expert.
3.8.4 Investigation Procedure
Without prejudice to any urgent interim measures that may be required, POLYMAS will normally proceed as follows:
Conduct a preliminary assessment of the concern and the materials currently available;
Determine whether the concern relates to a single manuscript, several related manuscripts, or an entire Special Issue or Collection;
Independently verify relevant identities, affiliations, email addresses, academic backgrounds, collaboration relationships, and peer-review records;
Where necessary, request explanations from authors, reviewers, or editors, together with original data, original images, ethics approvals, competing-interest declarations, or other supporting documentation;
Provide the individuals concerned with a reasonable opportunity and timeframe to respond;
Where necessary, seek confidential assessment from academic experts, statisticians, image specialists, or other professionals with no relevant competing interest;
Determine, on the basis of the available evidence and responses, whether processing should resume, peer review should be repeated, the investigation should be expanded, or further action should be taken;
Ensure that the final decision is made by an Editor-in-Chief or other person authorized by the publisher who has no relevant competing interest, and document both the decision and the basis for it.
POLYMAS will, as far as reasonably possible, maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts, investigation materials, the identity of complainants, and related correspondence, except where disclosure is required by law, necessary for an institutional investigation, or necessary to protect the integrity of the publication record.
3.8.5 Contacting Relevant Institutions
POLYMAS may contact the research integrity office of an author’s, reviewer’s, or editor’s institution, the relevant funding body, or another appropriate organization where one or more of the following circumstances applies:
The individual concerned does not respond within a reasonable period;
The explanation or materials provided do not reasonably resolve the concern;
Original data, images, identity information, or ethics approval materials require verification by the relevant institution;
There is reason to suspect identity misuse, data fabrication, image manipulation, peer-review manipulation, or paper-mill activity;
The concern involves multiple manuscripts, multiple individuals, or multiple institutions and exceeds the journal’s reasonable capacity for internal verification;
The relevant institution is better placed, by law or by virtue of its responsibilities, to conduct a formal investigation.
In communications with institutions, POLYMAS will use neutral and factual language, provide only the evidence necessary for the inquiry, and avoid unsupported conclusions of misconduct before the investigation is complete. Where multiple institutions are involved, POLYMAS may first contact the corresponding author’s institution, the lead institution for the relevant project, or another appropriate coordinating institution.
3.8.6 Handling of Unpublished Manuscripts
Depending on the outcome of the investigation, POLYMAS may take one or more of the following actions in relation to an unpublished manuscript:
Resume normal processing;
Disregard problematic reviewer reports and arrange a new independent peer-review process;
Replace the handling editor or reviewer(s);
Require the author(s) to correct declarations, authorship information, data, or other materials;
Reject the manuscript;
Withdraw an acceptance decision that has been made but has not yet resulted in publication;
Terminate further processing of the manuscript;
Extend the review to related manuscripts or to the relevant Special Issue or Collection.
The term “retraction” is generally reserved for content that has already been published. For unpublished content, POLYMAS uses terms such as “rejection,” “termination of processing,” or “withdrawal of acceptance,” as appropriate.
3.8.7 Handling of Published Content
For content that has already been published, POLYMAS will take appropriate action according to the nature of the issue, the strength of the evidence, and the extent to which the reliability of the article is affected. Such action may include:
Taking no further action;
Issuing a correction;
Publishing an editorial note or other appropriate notice;
Publishing an expression of concern where the evidence is inconclusive, an institutional investigation is ongoing, or the investigation is likely to remain unresolved for an extended period;
Retracting the article where its conclusions are unreliable, serious research or publication misconduct has occurred, or the article was published on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer-review process;
In rare cases involving significant legal, privacy, safety, or other exceptional risks, restricting access to or removing content in accordance with applicable policies.
Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices should be clearly linked to the original article, identify the party taking the action and the reason for it, and remain objective and accurate without using unsupported or unnecessarily accusatory language. An author’s refusal to respond or disagreement with the decision does not prevent POLYMAS from taking necessary action to correct the publication record where sufficient grounds exist.
3.8.8 Measures Concerning GE/CE Editorial Authority
Where an investigation concerns a GE/CE, POLYMAS may, depending on the level of risk and the outcome of the investigation:
Temporarily suspend the GE/CE’s authority to handle manuscripts within the relevant Special Issue or Collection;
Reassign relevant manuscripts for independent editorial reassessment;
Extend the review to other manuscripts handled by the GE/CE;
Require the GE/CE to undertake additional training in publication ethics;
Terminate the GE/CE’s role in the relevant Special Issue or Collection;
Where serious or repeated violations are confirmed, disqualify the individual from current or future editorial appointments;
Where necessary, notify the individual’s institution of the investigation outcome.
Any final action should be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the extent of the individual’s involvement, and the impact on the publication record. POLYMAS should distinguish between active participation in misconduct, failure to exercise appropriate editorial oversight, and situations in which the individual was unknowingly deceived by others.
This policy draws on the publicly available policies and guidance of the following industry bodies:
COPE: Systematic Manipulation of the Publication Process — Before and After Publication
COPE: Peer Review Manipulation Suspected During the Peer Review Process
COPE: Best Practices for Guest-Edited Collections
COPE: Cooperation between Journals and Research Institutions on Research Integrity Cases