MR Journals

MR Editors

Role and Responsibilities of Editorial Board Member

Nature of role: This is a voluntary position, and there is no remuneration/royalty related to the post in any circumstances.

Purpose of role: The role of the Editorial Board is to advise and support the Editor, who has responsibility for the content of the journal.

Peer-review: We expect that you will:-

  • Review papers for the Editor (two paper in an year)
  • Provide second opinions on papers (e.g. where reviews are incomplete or rejection of a commissioned article has been recommended)
  • Help identify suitable reviewers.
  • Possibly oversee the review process for several papers in a particular stream– choosing reviewers and contributing to the final publication decision.

Contributing content: Board members should:-

  • Consider the journal first for your own educational articles.
  • Contribute: Articles, Editorials, Short pieces, Correspondence etc.
  • Contribute ideas for commissions – making suggestions for both subject matter and potential authors.
  • Help as required in approaching potential contributors.
  • Acting as an ambassador for the journal
  • Board members should help promote the journal to authors, readers and subscribers, and should encourage colleagues to submit their best work to us. They should help to ensure the journal is well used by local faculty, journal clubs etc., and that subscriptions held by local faculty libraries are maintained.

Providing input into strategy:

  • The Board should provide advice on a range of subjects, for example:
  • Feedback on past issues.
  • Future direction for the journal.
  • Subject-specific expertise (e.g. research progress in your particular community, new areas to look at, important conferences at which the journal should be promoted)
  • Competitor comparisons
  • Ideas and innovations
  • Policy developments.
  • Financial and commercial aspects of the journals are the responsibility of the Publications Management Board, but Editorial Board members are expected to maintain an awareness of financial implications of editorial decisions.

Specific areas of responsibility: ome Board members may be asked to take responsibility for a specific part or aspect of the journal.


  • The Editorial Board member will work closely with the Editor of the Journal and Board members with sub-editorial roles.
  • Other contacts may include the Director of Publications and Website, the Head of Publications, and the Staff Editors.

Term of office: The term of office will be two years in the first instance, subject to review by the Editor of the Journal.


Guidelines for Reviewers:

Peer Review at META RESEARCH PRESS: As a peer reviewer for META RESEARCH PRESS journals, you are part of a valued community. Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system.

Only some of the submitted papers are reviewed in depth. For in-depth review, at least two outside referees are consulted. Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and are asked to return comments within 3 working days for most papers. Reviewers may be selected to evaluate separate components of a manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time spent in preparing a review, and will consult you on a revision of a manuscript only if we believe the paper has been significantly improved but still requires input. The final responsibility for decisions of acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript lies with the editor.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers:

  • Reviews should be objective evaluations of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review or you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. If you have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), you should describe them in your confidential comments.
  • If, as a reviewer, you believe that you are not qualified to evaluate a component of the research, you should inform the editor in your review.
  • Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments; META RESEARCH PRESS reserves the right to edit out comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts.
  • Just as you wish prompt evaluations of your own research, please return your reviews within the time period specified when you were asked to review the paper. If events will prevent a timely review, it is your responsibility to inform the editor at the time of the request.
  • The review process is conducted anonymously; META RESEARCH PRESS never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Board.
  • The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Please do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors' specific permission (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).

News / Events

© All Rights Reserved With Meta Research Press