Lead an edited scholarly project with clear academic responsibility

Academic Leadership and Editorial Scope

Book Editors play a central role in developing scholarly edited volumes published by AvenSci Publishing. They are responsible for establishing a coherent scientific vision, defining the intellectual scope of the publication and ensuring that the proposed content addresses a meaningful need within the relevant research community.

The scope of an edited volume should be sufficiently focused to provide scientific coherence while allowing the inclusion of complementary perspectives, methods and emerging areas of research. Editors should identify the intended readership, principal themes and expected contribution of the book to its field.

The agreed editorial scope provides the foundation for contributor selection, chapter assessment and the overall organisation of the volume. Substantial changes to that scope should be discussed with AvenSci before implementation.

Responsibilities of Book Editors

Book Editors are expected to coordinate the academic development of the volume, maintain communication with contributors and promote consistent standards of scholarly quality throughout the project.

Their responsibilities include developing the proposed table of contents, defining chapter objectives, coordinating submission and revision schedules, assessing the relevance of contributions and identifying gaps or unnecessary overlaps in coverage.

Editors should communicate requirements and deadlines clearly, monitor the progress of individual chapters and inform AvenSci promptly of significant difficulties that may affect scientific quality or the agreed production timetable.

Where several Book Editors share responsibility for a volume, their respective roles and decision-making arrangements should be agreed to avoid ambiguity or inconsistent instructions to contributors.

Selection and Invitation of Contributors

Contributors should be selected primarily on the basis of their relevant expertise, scholarly experience and ability to provide a substantive contribution to the subject of the volume.

Editors should seek an appropriate balance of scientific perspectives and, where relevant, methodological approaches, career stages, institutional backgrounds and international research experience. Such considerations should support academic quality without replacing assessment of individual competence.

Invitations should describe the proposed chapter topic, expected scope, editorial requirements, anticipated schedule and any applicable publication conditions. Contributors should understand that an invitation or preliminary agreement does not in itself guarantee acceptance of a completed chapter.

Editors should avoid inappropriate preferential treatment and should not use contributor selection to advance unrelated personal, institutional or commercial interests.

Editorial Independence and Fair Assessment

Editorial assessment must be conducted fairly, consistently and on the basis of scholarly merit, scientific relevance, intellectual rigour and suitability for the publication.

Editors should distinguish constructive academic disagreement from deficiencies in research quality. Manuscripts should not be disadvantaged because their conclusions differ from an editor's own scientific position, provided that the work meets appropriate standards of evidence and integrity.

Decisions and recommendations should be supported by clear academic reasoning. Contributors should receive sufficiently informative feedback to understand the principal concerns requiring clarification or revision.

Editorial independence does not remove the obligation to comply with AvenSci's publication policies, applicable contractual arrangements or research integrity procedures.

Conflicts of Interest

Book Editors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal or competitive relationships that could reasonably be perceived as affecting their editorial judgement.

A conflict may arise when an editor is assessing a contribution by a close collaborator, a member of the same research group, a family member, a direct competitor or another person with whom a significant relevant relationship exists.

Where a conflict could compromise independent assessment, the editor should inform AvenSci and refrain from directing the affected evaluation or recommendation until appropriate arrangements have been agreed.

Such arrangements may involve another suitably qualified editor, independent reviewers or direct oversight by AvenSci. Conflicts must not be concealed or managed informally where impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Peer Review and Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer review is intended to support rigorous, constructive and independent assessment of scholarly contributions. The review arrangements applicable to each project are determined by AvenSci's editorial policies and the nature of the publication.

Where Book Editors are authorised to recommend or identify reviewers, they should consider the reviewer's subject expertise, capacity to assess the work objectively, availability and potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should be asked to evaluate scientific accuracy, methodological appropriateness, relevance, clarity of argument, completeness of documentation and the contribution of the manuscript to existing scholarship.

Editors must respect the confidentiality requirements of the applicable review model. Reviewer identities, reports, unpublished manuscripts and privileged editorial communications must not be disclosed or circulated beyond authorised participants.

Editors should assess review reports critically, reconcile substantive differences where appropriate and avoid treating reviewer recommendations as automatic publication decisions.

Chapter-Level Editorial Management

In multi-author volumes, individual chapters may progress through submission, assessment, revision and editorial recommendation at different times. Book Editors are expected to monitor these parallel processes while maintaining oversight of the complete volume.

Each chapter should be assessed in relation to its scientific quality and its contribution to the agreed scope of the book. Editors should identify duplication, omissions, inconsistencies in terminology or differences in emphasis that may undermine the coherence of the final work.

Revision requests should be specific, proportionate and consistent with the scientific concerns identified during assessment. Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive comments.

Where a chapter cannot meet the required standards, the Book Editor should communicate the academic concerns to AvenSci and make an appropriate recommendation. The final publisher decision remains with AvenSci.

Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

Book Editors share responsibility for promoting responsible scholarly conduct and identifying potential concerns affecting material submitted to the volume.

Possible concerns include plagiarism, fabricated or falsified research findings, inappropriate manipulation of figures or data, undisclosed duplicate publication, misleading citation practices, disputed authorship and failures to disclose relevant ethical approvals or conflicts of interest.

Editors should not attempt to resolve serious allegations through informal arrangements or private negotiations that could compromise fairness or the preservation of relevant evidence.

Potential integrity concerns should be referred promptly to AvenSci for assessment under the applicable editorial procedures. Editors should cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification while preserving confidentiality and avoiding premature conclusions.

Authorship, Permissions and AI Transparency

Book Editors should ensure that contributors are informed of the applicable authorship, attribution, copyright and permissions requirements. Individual chapter authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality and lawful use of the material they submit.

Editors should encourage clear identification of author names, affiliations, corresponding contributors and ORCID identifiers where available. Authorship changes or disputes must be communicated to AvenSci where they could affect attribution, consent or publication rights.

Contributors must identify third-party material requiring permission or licence verification, including figures, tables, illustrations and substantial reproduced content. Editors should raise apparent omissions before production progresses.

Material use of generative artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation should be disclosed in accordance with AvenSci's author requirements. AI tools must not be presented as authors, and editorial participants remain accountable for the scholarly accuracy and integrity of the content.

Scientific Consistency and Manuscript Preparation

An edited volume should read as a coherent scholarly publication rather than an unrelated collection of contributions. Book Editors should promote a consistent level of scientific depth, appropriate terminology and complementary coverage across chapters.

Editors should review the organisation of the table of contents, the relationship between chapter subjects and the consistency of essential scientific concepts, abbreviations and nomenclature.

Contributors should follow the applicable Author Guidelines and any additional project-specific instructions agreed with AvenSci. The use of consistent reference conventions, figure labelling, table presentation and manuscript structure facilitates editorial review and production.

Editors may recommend introductory, concluding or integrative material where it meaningfully strengthens the scholarly value of the volume. Major restructuring or the addition or removal of chapters should be coordinated with AvenSci.

Production, Proofs and Publication Approval

Following editorial assessment and acceptance, Book Editors may be asked to assist with the preparation of the complete manuscript for production and the verification of publication-ready materials.

Responsibilities may include confirming the final table of contents, chapter sequence, editor and contributor details, cross-references, acknowledgements and the consistency of material shared across chapters.

During proof review, editors should identify production errors, misplaced or missing content, incorrect attribution and other issues affecting the scholarly integrity or coherence of the volume.

Proof correction is not normally intended for extensive rewriting or introducing substantial new scientific content. Any significant proposed change should be referred to AvenSci for assessment of its editorial and production implications.

Final editorial confirmation should be provided within the agreed timeframe and in accordance with the responsibilities assigned to the Book Editors and chapter authors.

Editorial Decisions and Publisher Responsibility

Book Editors provide academic leadership, coordinate contributors and make informed scholarly recommendations concerning the quality and suitability of chapters and the edited volume as a whole.

AvenSci Publishing retains final responsibility for publisher-level acceptance or rejection, publication ethics actions, contractual arrangements and authorisation of publication. Book Editor recommendations therefore inform, but do not replace, the publisher's decisions.

Editors must communicate significant scientific, ethical, legal or operational concerns promptly and must not independently promise publication, alter contractual conditions or commit AvenSci to arrangements that have not been authorised.

Effective cooperation between Book Editors, contributors, reviewers and AvenSci is essential to producing rigorous, coherent and responsibly published scholarly volumes.