Journal of Traumatic Stress Ethics Policy
The Journal of Traumatic Stress (JTS) abides by the ethical principles of the American Psychological Association (APA; 2002, 2010, 2017), the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE; n.d.) in its Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines, as well as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE; 2018) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. However, we recently recognized that JTS has not previously articulated its own ethics policy. Such a written policy can play a valuable role in fully informing and guiding authors, readers, and reviewers regarding our ethical principles and the procedures we follow to ensure the highest standard of ethics in the conduct, reporting, and evaluation of the research published in JTS. In addition, a journal's ethics policy can help to promote open science by increasing transparency regarding the review process and articulating the publication's positions in relation to key issues involving data sharing and replicability. The present document redresses those gaps.
JTS Ethical Guidelines
Ethical Conduct of Research
The principles underlying the ethical conduct of research are clearly laid out in the guidelines published by the international and national societies that govern the research conducted by multiple professions concerned with the study and treatment of traumatic stress (e.g., APA, 2002, 2017) and thus will not be reiterated in full here. Briefly, all submissions to JTS must be accompanied by a statement confirming that (1) the research methods were reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board or formally constituted ethics committee, or else reviewed and deemed exempt from ethics review; (2) the researchers obtained informed consent from any participants involved, unless this was specifically waived by the ethical oversight committee; and (3) the research was conducted in keeping with recognized ethical standards.
Guidelines on Submissions
Originality
The Journal publishes only original work that has not been published previously elsewhere, either in whole or in part, in any medium—including electronic or print media, or papers previously published in a different language. To this end, cover letters should include a statement confirming that the work in the submitted document is original and the author(s)’ own and is not derived from any other source, published or unpublished. In some cases, relevant excerpts from other sources—such as long quotations, tables, or figures—might be appropriate to include within a manuscript, but these must be correctly cited and clearly identified as having been reproduced from another source, with any necessary copyright permissions documented (see section on Approvals, Agreements, and Permissions).
Nonredundancy
As per APA (2002) guidelines, “piecemeal” or redundant (also termed “salami;” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity, n.d.) publishing is strongly discouraged. Multiple papers utilizing the identical data set or recapitulating the identical results do not provide the field with the same level of confidence—in the robustness, replicability, and generalizability of the results and conclusions that can be drawn—as do replications of findings across different data sets and laboratories. When submitting a manuscript, authors should disclose information about any highly related papers that have utilized an identical or substantially overlapping data set that they have published, submitted, or have in press. Previous publication of an abstract derived from a presentation of the work at a scientific meeting does not preclude consideration for publication in JTS, but this should be disclosed at the time of submission. Similarly, work derived from a thesis or dissertation is not precluded from publication in JTS but should be identified as such.
Adherence to ethical guidelines
All submissions to JTS must include a statement affirming that the conduct of the study followed ethical guidelines and that the study was reviewed and either approved or deemed exempt by an institutional or governmental ethical review board, with the name of that entity identified on the online submission form but blinded in the body of the manuscript itself. It is JTS policy that authors cannot self-determine whether a study is exempt from ethical review but, rather, that they must seek written confirmation from an appropriate body.
Approvals, agreements, and permissions
APA policy permits author to use, with some exceptions, a maximum of three figures or tables from a journal article or book chapter, single text extracts of fewer than 400 words, or a series of text extracts that total fewer than 800 words without requesting formal permission from APA. It is important to check with the publisher or copyright owner regarding specific requirements for permission to quote from or adapt copyrighted material (2010, p. 173).
Summary: Declarations required at the time of submission
In sum, at the time of submission, authors will be asked to affirm on the online submission form and in their cover letter that (1) the work has not been published previously and is not currently under consideration elsewhere; (2) the work is original and the author(s)’ own and no copyright has been breached by the inclusion of any content drawn from another source; (3) the publication has been approved by all coauthors and, if required, by the governing authorities at the entity under which the research was carried out; (4) the authors have no conflicts of interests or have declared any such conflicts; and (5) the study followed ethical guidelines and was either approved or deemed exempt by an institutional or governmental authority. In addition, (6) authors will be asked to provide information regarding any redundancies in the dissemination of the findings reported in the manuscript, including any closely related papers published, submitted, or in press utilizing the same data set as the manuscript being submitted to JTS and/or previous dissemination of the findings reported in conference presentations, theses, dissertations, etc.
Authorship
What constitutes authorship?
As the APA code of ethics (2002) articulates, authorship is warranted when substantial contributions have been made to the conceptualization and writing of the specific manuscript being submitted; accordingly, scholars “take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed” (p. 12). The COPE guidelines further define authorship as involving contributing sufficiently to the scientific work, being accountable for one's part of the work, helping to draft the manuscript or critically review the draft, and approving the final manuscript. Sole contributions that are not consistent with authorship, but which may be appropriate to acknowledge in the Author Note, include running participants through the procedure, coding data, carrying out data analyses designed by another member of the research team, and proofreading a manuscript to which one made no original contributions. As stated in the APA code of ethics, “Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement” (2017, p. 12).
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors (ICMJE, 2018).
Importantly, any individual designated as an author must meet all four of these criteria, and anyone who meets all four criteria must be identified as an author. Other helpful rubrics for determining not only who should be credited for authorship but in what order authors should be listed are provided by the APA Science Student Council (2006), Fine and Kurdek (1993), and Winston (1985).
Further, it is should be noted that “honorary,” “guest,” or “gift” authorship, in which an individual with a prestigious name or position of authority is offered authorship on a manuscript to which that person has made no direct contribution, is not appropriate. As per the APA code of ethics, “Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit” (2017, p. 12).
Given these guidelines, authors who submit manuscripts that identify an extremely long list of coauthors should be prepared to respond to queries from the Journal and requests for explications regarding the specific role that each of those numerous coauthors played in the writing of this specific manuscript.
Requests for changes in authorship
Authors should take care to determine who will be included in the authorship of a manuscript at the time its drafting is initiated; the time of submission is too late to ensure that such discussions ensue in a way that is satisfactory to all parties. Only in highly unusual circumstances and for compelling reasons will a request for a change in authorship of a submitted or accepted manuscript be considered.
Conflicts of Interest
In their essence, conflicts of interest (COI) represent situations in which objective and dispassionate scientific judgments might be clouded by other interests. In a field of study in which scholars are devoted to a shared interest and frequently cross paths and collaborate, such as is the case in the study of traumatic stress, the opportunities for COI to arise are frequent, common, and unsurprising. Thus, scholars should feel no stigma or hesitation about identifying potential COI when they arise.
Regarding COI that must be declared by authors at the time of submission, a nonexhaustive list of examples would include the funding source for the research and any interests the author has in that entity, whether financial or otherwise; research involving a measure, intervention, or other product from which an author might profit through the dissemination of the work; and other forms of financial and nonfinancial benefit. Conflicts of interest should be acknowledged at the time of submission and will be published in the Author Note of the manuscript. Authors who are not certain as to whether a COI exists in fact should disclose the situation to the Editor in Chief so that its significance can be assessed.
Reviewers for JTS also are required to disclose potential COI at the time they are invited to review a manuscript. In this respect, as with others, JTS follows the COPE (2017) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. As with other forms of COI, those for reviewers involve factors that might reduce the ability to provide an objective, unbiased evaluation of the scientific quality of the work. Regarding specific COI that might affect reviewers, a nonexhaustive list of examples would include cases in which a manuscript is authored by an individual with whom a reviewer is involved in a collaboration or has a personal or professional relationship, whether the nature of that relationship is positive or negative; when the reviewer has played a role in the work described in the submission; or when a reviewer has a personal “stake” in the outcome of the research that might affect his or her judgement, such as when a study is designed to refute or promote theories originating with the reviewer.
By the same token, COI can affect members of the editorial team, including the Editor in Chief of the Journal and the Associate Editors (AEs), who shepherd manuscripts through the review process. The Editor in Chief is required to submit to the Journal’s owner, the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS), annual reports regarding any COI related to her or his journal-related work and, in the case of specific submissions, must hand over to the Deputy Editor responsibility for any manuscript with which the Editor in Chief has a COI. Similarly, all AEs are required to disclose potential COI at the time a manuscript is first assigned to them so that they can be recused and the manuscript reassigned to another AE. Manuscripts for which multiple members of the editorial team experience a COI (e.g., those authored by members of the JTS Editorial Advisory Board or leadership of ISTSS) present a particular challenge. In such cases, the manuscript will be handled by a senior member of the editorial team whose decision will be reviewed by at least one other senior member to ensure objectivity and lack of bias.
Ethical Conduct of Peer Reviewers
Reviewers for JTS are held to high standards of ethics consistent with Journal principles and are expected to follow the COPE (2017) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. In addition to the requirement that peer reviewers acknowledge COI, as articulated in the Conflicts of Interest section of this document, reviewers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of each manuscript they review; submitted manuscripts are privileged documents that may not be cited, shared, retained, or copied. Until the manuscript is published, or unless the reviewer has the express permission of the corresponding author, the content of the manuscript and its findings should not be disseminated or shared in any way. Reviewers who perceive reasons to be concerned about any form of scientific misconduct in a submitted manuscript should immediately notify the Editor in Chief and maintain confidentiality regarding those concerns until they are officially notified that the information may be shared with others. See also the Peer Review Process section of this document for further information articulating the expectations for peer reviewers.
Errors in Published Manuscripts
Authors or readers who determine that an error appears in a published manuscript should contact the Editor in Chief, who will take prompt action to make corrections. Small-scale errors typically will be addressed by the publication of an Erratum that describes the error and provides corrected text or statistics. The Erratum will be attached to the online version of the article and will appear whenever the article is accessed on the Journal website. More serious errors that invalidate the findings of a study or that involve scientific misconduct may require a retraction of the article.
Forum for Postpublication Discussion
The Journal provides the opportunity for authors to submit commentaries on articles published in JTS in order to provide a forum for scholarly discussion. Commentaries comprise responses to previously published articles or, occasionally, invited essays on a professional or scientific topic of general interest. Commentaries (1,000 words or less) should be submitted no later than 8 weeks after the original article is published (12 weeks if originating outside the United States), must be scholarly and content-directed, and must use tactful language. As with other submissions to JTS, commentaries will be subject to peer review to ensure accuracy of content and appropriateness for the Journal. The author of the original article is given the opportunity to respond to accepted commentaries.
Plagiarism and Intellectual Property
Plagiarism is the act of reproducing another individual's ideas or words without proper attribution and citation and thus misleading the reader into believing such words or ideas are the author's own rather than being derived from another source. Plagiarism applies no matter whether the other source is published or unpublished; in addition to published books and articles, plagiarism occurs when proper citations are not provided to words and ideas drawn from other authors’ abstracts, theses or dissertations, grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, preprints, web pages, and any other works. Each of these sources involves ideas and words that are the intellectual property of the original author.
Plagiarism involves the copying of text into a new work without crediting it to the original source…Plagiarism can be intentional or conscious. It can also be unintentional or inadvertent; for example, when you read something and then later forget that it had a source other than yourself. Regardless of the motivation, plagiarism is plagiarism, and the possibility of unintentional plagiarism means the steps you take to avoid it ought not be based on your memory alone…Your first line of defense against an accusation of plagiarism is using quotation marks…Your second line of defense is citing and rephrasing. If you have rephrased someone else's work, be sure to cite the original source. Sometimes, rephrasing can be difficult because the original authors did such a good job of conveying their ideas. That is no excuse for copying without quotes.
In turn, self-plagiarism (APA, 2010) occurs when authors “recycle” ideas and words they have published in another source without appropriately citing and acknowledging the source in which those words or ideas originally appeared. Although self-plagiarism is not considered a form of research misconduct in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity (n.d.) guidelines, it is nonetheless considered to be “ethically inappropriate.” Self-plagiarism from another published source also may involve the infringement of copyright. As with other forms of plagiarism, a chief harm of self-plagiarism is the potential to mislead readers into thinking that they are engaging with fresh and original content when the ideas have already been disseminated elsewhere and the credit and correct citations for them is due to another work entirely, even if penned by the same author. Accordingly, scholars acknowledge when the ideas they are presenting have appeared in another source they have authored, provide citations to such sources, and use quotation marks and provide page numbers when reproducing text that is drawn directly from other works, even if those works are their own. In the case of a publication of an article based, in part or whole, on a thesis or dissertation, self-plagiarism generally is not seen as applicable. Given that, typically in academic settings, the intended final result of a student's scholarship is a published work, the thesis or dissertation often is thought of as analogous to a draft of that publication. Thus, even when the thesis or dissertation has been submitted to an electronic depository and bears the copyright of the author, it is generally viewed as acceptable for that author to reproduce text from her or his own dissertation in a published article (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity, n.d.); however, at the time of submission, it is necessary to alert the editor of the Journal to the fact that the manuscript is based upon a thesis or dissertation, and this also should be acknowledged in the Author Note.
Addressing Concerns About Scientific Misconduct
In addition to plagiarism, other potential concerns regarding scientific misconduct might include failure to adhere to ethical principles in the treatment of participants, deception, falsification of data or results, or failure to declare relevant COIs. Such concerns may arise at any point in the scientific publishing process (at the time of submission, review, copy editing, or postpublication) and from various sources (coauthors, colleagues, reviewers, readers, or authors themselves). Any individuals who have concerns about scientific misconduct should address those by initially communicating those concerns directly and confidentially to the author or investigator involved. If a response that provides a clear resolution of the issue is not received, referral to another responsible entity is appropriate, such as an institution's Academic Integrity or Research Integrity office.
In regard to articles submitted to or published in JTS, concerns about possible scientific misconduct should be directed to the Journal’s Editor in Chief. The Journal follows the processes described in the flowcharts provided by COPE (2015), which entail reviewing the relevant documentation, contacting the author to provide and obtain further information related to the concern, and then, depending upon the nature of the issue and the author's response, determining and carrying out the most appropriate action. Such actions may include, in order of seriousness: a letter of concern sent to the individual against whom the complaint is made; a letter of reprimand specifying the consequences of a repeated infraction; a formal letter detailing the concerns addressed to the author's superior, funding source, and/or the individual responsible for academic integrity or research oversight at the author's institution, requesting a further investigation; publication of an Erratum with an explication of the misconduct through which the erratum arose; or retraction of the article from the Journal with a statement regarding the reasons for the retraction. Should reviewers or members of the JTS editorial team be found to have engaged in scientific misconduct, their association with the Journal will be discontinued.
When concerns about possible scientific misconduct arise during the review or copy editing stages, the publication process will be halted until the issue is resolved. If allegations arise against editorial staff or reviewers, their roles will be taken over by other members of the editorial team while the matter is reviewed. Until such time as a decision is reached and made public, all deliberations regarding questions about scientific misconduct are carried out in strictest confidence among the individuals involved in such decisions, who may include members of the JTS executive team; the publisher's Intellectual Property group; the Board of Directors of the Journal’s owner, the ISTSS; and expert consultants such as those provided by COPE.
Open Science, Data Sharing, Replicability, and Reproducibility
Promotion of Open Science and Data Sharing
The Journal strongly encourages authors to incorporate best practices that promote open science in the conduct and reporting of their research (Kidwell et al., 2016). These include preregistering all studies, in addition to clinical trials. Data sharing and sharing of materials also are strongly encouraged, albeit the Journal recognizes that some governmental and military entities disallow access to their data to individuals who have not gone through their rigorous approval processes, which can make such access difficult to obtain; for that reason, JTS strongly encourages but does not require data sharing.
Replicability and Reproducibility
The replication of findings across data sets, samples, and laboratories yields important information about their robustness, generalizability, and the boundaries of their applicability. This is of particular value for an international journal such as JTS, which is concerned with the phenomenon of traumatic stress and its aftermath across nations and cultures. Therefore, the Journal does accept submissions that focus on the replication of important findings from other studies, when such replication would make a valuable contribution to the field. The replication of findings that are already well established, but are now merely being reported in a new sample, may not be deemed to make a contribution worthy of consideration by JTS. Importantly, JTS prioritizes the publication of studies that test theoretically derived hypotheses; for example, a study simply demonstrating that a well-established effect holds in a data set drawn from a novel sample does not make as valuable a contribution to the field as one testing theories regarding how or why the finding might be expected to differ in that sample.
In order allow for replication, the methods used in a study must be described clearly enough that they are reproducible (Munafò et al., 2017). Therefore, as emphasized in the JTS Author Guidelines, articles submitted to JTS should include descriptions of the methods sufficient not only to allow the reader to fully comprehend those methods and be able to judge their validity and appropriateness but also to allow another scientist to replicate those methods in an independent study. In this regard, each manuscript must stand on its own; it is not sufficient to simply direct the reader to a previous publication deriving from the same laboratory or data set in order to obtain information about the methods used in the present study. The information provided must include a description of the sampling and participant recruitment processes; clear information about the procedures employed; and details about the psychometric properties, provenance, and evidence for validity and reliability of measures administered, including indices of reliability in the present sample where appropriate.
JTS Procedures and Processes
The Peer Review Process
- The reviewer identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology.
- The reviewer commented accurately and productively on the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
- The reviewer commented on major strengths and weakness of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
- The reviewer provided the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
- The reviewer's comments to the author were constructive and professional.
- The review provided the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.
Upon receipt of a review, each AE rates the quality of that review based upon the above criteria. The reviewers’ comments to the author are appended to the decision letter that is sent the author, and key suggestions in those reviews are cited by the AE in that decision letter, which is integrally informed by the reviews. However, reviews that are deemed unacceptable, whether due to inappropriate, inadequate, or discourteous content, may be rescinded and not included in the decision letter. Reviewers who routinely submit reviews that receive lower-than-acceptable ratings will be removed from the roster of JTS reviewers. The online manuscript submission system also tracks time to completion of review, and reviewers who routinely fail to return reviews in a timely manner, or who promise reviews that are never returned, also will cease receiving invitations to review for JTS.
Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) members play a key role in the review process, given that they are individuals with especially high levels of scholarly expertise in the study of traumatic stress who have made a commitment to regularly provide reviews (generally a minimum of six per year) for the Journal over the span of a 3-year term. EAB members also help to guide journal policy and improve journal practices by sharing their views with the Editor in Chief and AEs and through participation in discussion at the JTS Editorial Board luncheon held at the ISTSS annual meeting.
The Editorial Decision Process
Prereview and criteria for consideration
The editorial review process starts with an initial examination by the Journal’s Editorial Assistant of each manuscript submitted via the online submission portal. The purpose of that review is to ensure that the manuscript is consistent with the requirements outlined in the sixth edition of the APA Publication Manual (2010) as well as JTS Author Guidelines (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/Journal/15736598/homepage/forauthors.html), that all critical information (e.g., IRB approval) is included, and that the manuscript is properly blinded with no identifying information in the text or titles. Except in cases in which COI come into play, as described in a previous section, the submission then undergoes an initial evaluation by the Editor in Chief who determines whether the manuscript is appropriate for consideration by JTS. Key factors in recommending a manuscript for consideration include the relevance and importance of the topic for traumatic stress studies, originality, and the potential to impact the field through informing research or evidence-based clinical practice. Key factors influencing the decision to reject a submission at this juncture include study topics that are not within the scope of JTS's mission or the interests of its readership, use of research methods or analytic strategies that are not scientifically sound or rigorous, or poorly written manuscripts whose meaning is obscured by egregious typographical errors, grammatical problems, or incorrect English usage. Given its scientific and empirical mission, JTS also gives priority to the dissemination of works that test theoretically derived hypotheses and are thus best positioned to advance the field and contribute substantially to the study of traumatic stress; consequently, studies that are merely descriptive in nature are unlikely to be deemed appropriate. Similarly, JTS rarely considers review articles that are nonsystematic. Reviews that contribute new empirical findings to the field, such as through meta-analysis, are preferred. The Journal also rarely considers submissions that are nonempirical, such as purely narrative essays, except in particular exceptional cases, such as introductions to special issues, invited articles from leaders in the field on advances in methodology or clinical applications, and groundbreaking monographs such as explications of new diagnostic criteria established for traumatic stress-related disorders. Commentaries are limited exclusively to comments on articles recently published in JTS. Editorials refer exclusively to communications to Journal readership authored by the Editor in Chief.
Review process
Once deemed appropriate for consideration, each submission is assigned to an Associate Editor (AE) who first reviews the manuscript and accompanying information, such as the author(s)’ cover letter, and makes an immediate determination regarding whether a COI that would require the AE to recuse him- or herself from evaluating that manuscript exists. It also is possible that, upon this initial review, an AE may identify additional limitations or concerns that would preclude consideration of the work for publication in JTS, in which case the AE may make a recommendation of immediate rejection to be considered by the Editor in Chief. Barring a recommendation to reject, the AE then identifies a roster of potential reviewers with the necessary areas of expertise to evaluate the work, rank-orders the reviewers in terms of ideal preference, and issues invitations to provide a review. Each empirical submission also is assigned to the Statistical Editor or Associate Statistical Editor of the Journal, who either provides a statistical review or solicits such a review from one of the Journal’s cadre of expert statistical reviewers. Typically, JTS seeks two to three content reviews in addition to a statistical review of each manuscript. After being asked to confirm that no conflict of interest is involved (see the Conflicts of Interest section), reviewers are asked to provide narrative comments regarding the quality of the paper and make a recommendation about whether it should be accepted, rejected, or if a revision should be invited. Reviewers also have the opportunity to provide confidential comments to the AE. Once the reviews are received, the AE considers all the reviewers’ comments and again reads the manuscript carefully in the light of the reviews in order to arrive at a preliminary recommendation of whether to accept, reject, or request further revision. Decisions to reject a manuscript at this juncture generally derive from reviewers’ judgments that the rationale for the study was inadequate, the methods were flawed, the data analyses were inappropriate, the writing was not of acceptable quality, or the value of the results to the field is insignificant. Decisions to invite a revision and resubmission are generally based upon reviewers’ opinions that shortcomings in the conceptualization, writing, or data analyses might be correctable but that an additional round of reviews is necessary to determine whether the author(s) have successfully redressed the problems.
With the reviews and her or his own evaluation of the manuscript in hand, the AE then crafts a decision letter that summarizes the key point in the reviews, appended to which is the full content of the comments from each of the reviewers, minus any confidential comments the reviewers have made to the AE or any reviews that have been redacted due to insufficiencies, as described previously. In crafting their decision letters, AEs strive to be accurate, courteous, and educational to authors in helping them to understand the factors that have contributed to the decision; ideally, the decision letter should be informative to the author such that, even if the decision is a rejection, the feedback provided will serve an educational purpose and positively contribute to the author's work going forward. The decision letter is then forwarded to the Editor in Chief, who reviews that letter, each of the reviews, and the manuscript itself, and then determines whether to approve the AE's recommendation or to suggest an alternative decision. Should substantive disagreements arise between an AE and the Editor in Chief regarding the appropriate decision on a manuscript, the matter is referred to another senior member of the editorial team, typically the Deputy Editor, for discussion and resolution.
Revision and resubmission
When the decision is to invite the authors to “revise and resubmit” the manuscript, authors are given 60 days in which to submit a revised version of the work (or 30 days for minor revisions). Authors who do not submit within that time frame may be required to submit the work as a new manuscript and reinitiate the review process from the beginning. An essential element of the revision submission is the author(s)’ response letter, in which each point raised by the AE and each of the reviewers is enumerated and authors articulate either how they addressed that point in their revision or their rationale for declining to do so. In addition, authors are asked to place yellow highlighting on those passages or sections of the manuscript in which they have made the changes described in their response letter. Once a revision is submitted, the AE makes every effort to send the revised manuscript for review to the same set of reviewers in order to maintain continuity and consistency; however, given vicissitudes in reviewers’ availability, this may not always be possible. The revise-and-submit process continues until either the revision is satisfactory and a decision of “accept” has been reached or reviewers determine that revision cannot satisfactorily address their concerns and the work must be rejected. In some exceptional cases, the AE may be able to make a determination regarding whether the revision has addressed the previous versions’ limitations without sending the manuscript back out for reviewers’ comments, or by consulting only with the statistical reviewer.
Discrepant opinions amongst reviewers represent a challenge for authors, as well as for the editorial team. AEs may consult with one another, or with the Editor in Chief, in order to arrive at decisions when the reviews received make contradictory recommendations. In some cases, when the impasse is particularly intractable, the AE may seek an additional review from a member of the EAB or another well-honed expert on the topic of the manuscript. In any case, AEs strive to produce decision letters that provide authors guidance on responding to contradictory recommendations in the reviews, such as by highlighting which comments are essential to address in order to produce an acceptable revision, and noting any recommendations that, in the AE's opinion, are off the mark or are not critical to the success of the revision.
Copy editing
Once accepted, manuscripts go through another careful level of review and copy editing, at which time further clarifications, edits, additions, revisions, or changes may be deemed needed in order to ensure comprehensibility and correct grammar and word-usage within the document, as well as compliance with APA formatting requirements, Journal style, and best practices in the reporting of quantitative (Appelbaum et al., 2018) or qualitative and mixed-methods data (Levitt et al., 2018) or systematic reviews (Siddaway, Wood, & Hedges, in press). Prior to submission, and at the time of any revisions, authors are urged to carefully proofread their manuscripts and to consult the JTS Author Guidelines and Style Sheet, both of which are available on the Journal's website, so as to avoid the unfortunate delays that ensue when extensive additional copy editing and revision are needed to bring an accepted manuscript into compliance with Journal and APA requirements prior to its being suitable for publication. Authors whose first language is not English may wish to seek consultation or collaboration with a native English-speaking colleague, or to enlist the services of professional editing services, such as those offered on the Wiley website.
Decision appeals
Authors who wish to appeal the decisions made regarding their manuscripts may submit those to the AE, who will then forward them to the Editor in Chief for consideration. If the Editor in Chief acted as the AE on submission concerned, the appeal will be directed to the Deputy Editor. Responses to decision appeals will be provided after consultation with at least one other senior member of the Journal’s executive team and the AE involved. Concerns or complaints that are not resolved through this process may be referred to COPE, the process for which is detailed in the organization's downloadable flowcharts (COPE, 2015).
Relation of the Journal of Traumatic Stress to ISTSS
Finally, transparency requires a description of the relation between JTS and ISTSS, which is the owner of the Journal. The Editor in Chief is appointed by the ISTSS Board of Directors, who regularly reviews her or his performance. The Editor in Chief also serves as a nonvoting ex-officio member of the ISTSS Board of Directors, reports to that Board regarding Journal status each year at the business meeting held at the ISTSS Annual Meeting, and is responsible for performing her or his duties in accordance with ISTSS's bylaws, rules, regulations, and policies, including the requirement to declare conflicts of interest. The Editor in Chief and ISTSS leadership also meet regularly with the Journal's publisher in order to review the Journal's strategic goals, such as those regarding impact factor and reach, and progress toward achieving those goals. ISTSS also has appointed a JTS Planning Committee, which consists of ISTSS member volunteers who consult with the Editor in Chief and the editorial team regarding initiatives that might enhance the Journal.
Nonetheless, the Editor in Chief is not an employee of ISTSS but rather serves the Journal in the role of independent contractor; the same is true of the Statistical Editor, all AEs, and the Journal staff. Moreover, the Editor in Chief retains full editorial independence and authority regarding the scientific content of the Journal. All submissions to the Journal are subject to the peer review process and must meet the same criteria for acceptance as submissions from any other source. As noted in another section, COI that arise related to the association between ISTSS and JTS, such as when submissions are authored by leaders in the ISTSS organization, are handled through the relevant editorial team member(s) recusing themselves from the decision-making or enlisting other senior members of the team to act as consultants in the process.
